2004-08-04
August 4, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on August 4,
2004, at 9:00 a.m., Room 241, County Office Building on McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. Ken C. Boyd, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Mr. Dennis S.
Rooker, Ms. Sally H. Thomas and Mr. David C. Wyant.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis,
and, Clerk, Ella W. Carey.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:05 a.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Dorrier.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 3a. Awards Presentation.
At this time, Mr. Dorrier recognized members of County staff who had recently received awards for
several programs.
Mr. Dorrier said the State Career and Education Awards Committee of the Virginia Department of
Education has recognized Albemarle County Fire Department staff and other regional partners for working
on programs to promote excellence in career and technical education. Specifically, he recognized a new
program with the health division of CATEC for a program to train high school students to become
firefighters and emergency medical technicians. He said nearly all of the original 14 applicants completed
this class and 40+ have signed up for next year’s program which is being funded primarily through support
of local businesses.
Mr. Dorrier then recognized Planning staff members who were involved with implementation of the
County’s Neighborhood Model. He said the Congress for New Urbanism selected the neighborhood model
to receive a regional award at the National Congress for New Urbanism Conference in Chicago last month.
These awards recognize distinguished design achievements in transforming contemporary place making in
urbanism. The neighborhood model was cited as a powerful example of a plan that is an advocacy tool
that is changing lives and attitudes and making a significant contribution in the fields of planning and urban
design.
Mr. Dorrier then mentioned staff members who are responsible for the County’s current website.
For a second year in a row Albemarle County has been named among the top ten most technologically-
advanced county governments in the U.S. by the Center for Digital Government of the National Association
of Counties in the 2004 Digital Counties Survey. Albemarle County ranks eighth in the nation in utilizing
information technology to deliver high quality service to its customers and citizens in the population category
of 150,000 or less. Albemarle is one of only four Virginia jurisdictions that rank in the top ten for population
categories which included Prince William County, Loudoun County and Roanoke County.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
There was no one present who wished to speak at this time.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker, seconded by Mr.
Wyant, to approve Items 5.1 through 5.10 on the Consent Agenda and to accept the remaining items for
information (Conversation concerning most individual items will be found at the end of those items).
Mr. Bowerman said Item 5.6 on the Consent Agenda contains a request for an appropriation for
Sunridge Road. Before voting on the Consent Agenda he would like to note that he may be making
another request at a future Board meeting. Another issue has come up since the Board originally approved
this request.
Roll was then called on the motion to approve the consent agenda, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
__________
Item 5.1. SP-2002-032. Dan's Automart (Sign #42). Request in accord w/Sec 30.6.3.2b of the
Zoning Ord which allows for outdoor storage & display in the EC Overlay Districts. TM 45B(1), Sec 5, Block
A, P9 & Block C, P 4, contains 2.095 acs. Znd HC & EC. Loc on eastern side of Rt 29N approx 1/3 mile
from intersect w/Rt 854 (Carrsbrook Dr). Rio Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was published in the Daily
Progress on July 19 and July 26, 2004.)
This item was removed from the agenda; the petition has been deferred indefinitely by the
August 4, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
Planning Commission.
__________
Item 5.2. SP-2004-0016. Forest Lakes North Swim and Tennis Club (Signs #23 & 94). Request to
allow all Forest Lakes Associates developments w/n Forest Lakes North & Forest Lakes South
neighborhoods to use swim & tennis club amenities of either neighborhood in accord w/Sec 15.2.2.4 &
5.1.16 of the Zoning Ord which allow for swim, golf, tennis & similar facilities. TM 46B3, P B contains 8.559
acs. Znd R-4 (Residential). Loc on Rt 1721 (1824 Timberwood Blvd) in Forest Lakes North development.
Rivanna Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was published in the Daily Progress on July 19 and July 26,
2004.)
The applicant had requested deferral until October 6, 2004.
By the recorded vote set out above, this item was deferred to October 6, 2004.
__________
Item 5.3. SP-2004-0017. Forest Lakes South Swim and Tennis Club (Sign #18). Request to allow
all Forest Lakes Associates developments w/n Forest Lakes North & Forest Lakes South neighborhoods to
use swim & tennis club amenities of either neighborhood in accord w/Secs 20.4.2.1, 22.2.2.6, 18.2.2.4 &
5.1.2 of the Zoning Ord which allow for swim, golf, tennis & similar facilities. TN 46B5, P 1B contains 6.552
acs. Znd PUD. Loc on Rt 1670 (1650 Ashwood Blvd) in Forest Lakes South development. Rivanna Dist.
(Notice of this public hearing was published in the Daily Progress on July 19 and July 26, 2004.)
The applicant had requested deferral until October 6, 2004.
By the recorded vote set out above, this item was deferred to October 6, 2004.
__________
Item 5.4. Adoption of resolution forgiving outstanding loan balances owed to the County by various
Volunteer Fire and Rescue Departments.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that for a number of years the County has assisted
volunteer fire and rescue departments by providing interest-free loans for the departments to purchase
firefighting and rescue apparatus. These loans, secured by service agreements executed by the
department, provided for loan repayments to be deducted from the County’s annual appropriation to the
department over a designated period of time.
In the FY 2004-2005 budget process, the budget for volunteer fire and rescue departments took a
significant step toward funding 100 percent of the volunteer department’s identified operating costs through
additional funds and restructuring of current contributions. This restructuring of current contributions
included forgiving the volunteer departments’ current outstanding debt owed to the County through its no
interest loan fund. After discussions with the County’s external auditors, it was determined that in addition to
the actual appropriation dissolving the loan fund, a formal resolution must be adopted by the Board
forgiving the outstanding balances owed to the County by the volunteer departments as a result of previous
service agreements. The resolution identifies each department and forgives their current outstanding loan
balances. The appropriation dissolving the loan fund and the transfer of the current fund balance of
$164,322.93 is being presented to the Board under a separate Executive Summary.
Staff recommends the Board adopt the Resolution forgiving the outstanding loan balances of the
volunteer fire and rescue departments.
By the recorded vote set out above the Board adopted the following Resolution forgiving
the outstanding loan balances of the volunteer fire and rescue departments:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, had previously
entered into service agreements with various volunteer fire companies and rescue squads servicing
the citizens of Albemarle County; and
WHEREAS, these service agreements provided interest-free funding for the purchase of
capital assets by the volunteer fire companies and rescue squads with repayment of the debt to the
County occurring over a period of eight to fifteen years; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in consideration of the
services provided by the volunteer fire companies and rescue squads to the citizens of Albemarle
County, now desire to forgive the existing outstanding balances owed to it by the volunteer fire
companies and rescue squads as a result of said service agreements.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia hereby forgives the current indebtedness owed as a result of the following service
agreements:
East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Company, Inc. $ 100,800.00
North Garden Volunteer Fire Company, Inc. 260,208.35
Earlysville Volunteer Fire Company, Inc. 138,281.25
Crozet Volunteer Fire Department, Inc. 229,546.00
August 4, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
Stony Point Volunteer Fire Company, Inc. 100,485.50
Scottsville Volunteer Fire Department, Inc. 203,750.00
Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Department, Inc. 129,163.79
Scottsville Volunteer Rescue Squad, Inc. 271,991.41
Western Albemarle Rescue Squad, Inc. 26,250.00
Total $1,460,476.30
__________
Item 5.5. Requested FY 2004 Appropriations.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that the Code of Virginia §15.2-2507 stipulates that any
locality may amend its budget to adjust the aggregate amount to be appropriated during the current fiscal
year as shown in the currently adopted budget. However, any such amendment which exceeds one
percent of the total expenditures shown in the currently adopted budget or the sum of $500,000, whichever
is lesser, must be accomplished by first publishing a notice of a meeting and holding a public hearing
before amending the budget. The total of these requested additional FY 2004 appropriations is
$325,385.44. Since the last FY 2003-04 budget amendment public hearing held on May 5, 2004, the
additional appropriations, including the appropriations presented herein, total $478,356.84, which is below
the threshold for a budget amendment on their own. It is anticipated that a budget amendment will be
proposed in September, 2004 and these appropriations would be incorporated into it.
This request involves the approval of four new FY 2004 appropriations as follows: Two
appropriations (No. 2004-085 and No. 2004-088) in the amount of $23,002.32 for various school programs
and grants; one appropriation (No. 2004-087) reimbursing the Capital Improvement Fund from the Food
Service Fund Balance for cafeteria equipment purchased during the construction of Baker-Butler school in
the amount of $188,647.00; and, one appropriation (No. 2004-086) in the amount of $113,736.12, funding
expenditures for the Joint Emergency Communications Center mobile data project.
Appropriation No. 2004-085, $4,780.01. At its meeting on June 24, 2004, the School Board
approved the following appropriations:
Western Albemarle High School and the Warrior Club received donations in the amount of
$600.00. Mark and Gina Fletcher donated $100.00 and the Western Albemarle High School Warrior Club
donated $500.00. These donations will be used to purchase weight room equipment for the new
Weight/Wellness room. Western Albemarle High School also received a donation in the amount of $50.00
from Michael and Patricia Crawford. This donation will be used to purchase supplies for the choir.
The following grants have a fund balance from FY ‘02-03: Goals 2000 Award in the amount of
$2,398.62; Carl Perkins Vocational Grant in the amount of $557.60; Family Literacy in the amount of
$59.27; and Martha Jefferson Hospital Grant (MJH) in the amount of $1,114.52. It is requested that these
fund balances be appropriated for FY ’03-04 to cover expenses incurred.
Appropriation No. 2004-086, $113,736.12. The Emergency Communications Center has
requested the use of these funds for the initial startup cost of the Police Mobile Data Project. The goal of
this project is to enhance the ability of law enforcement by effectively incorporating computer technology.
The funds will primarily be used for consultant assistance on design and equipment requirements.
Appropriation No. 2004-087, $188,647.00. At its meeting on May 13, 2004, the School Board
approved the following appropriation:
For the start-up of Baker Butler Elementary School, the Food Service Department agreed to pay
for cafeteria equipment. As a self-sustaining program, Food Service is expected to provide for regular
equipment purchases and upgrades to both new and existing facilities. The amount transferred represents
the sum total of all Food Service equipment purchased for the cafeteria of Baker Butler Elementary School.
This expenditure meets the Federal requirement for expenditure of fund balances. This would reimburse
the CIP for expenses incurred on behalf of the Food Service Department.
Appropriation No. 2004-088, $18,222.31. At its meeting on July 8, 2004, the School Board
approved the following appropriations:
The Learn & Serve grant has an unexpended fund balance of $585.31 from FY ‘02-03. It is
requested these funds be reappropriated for FY ‘03-04 to cover expenses incurred.
Meriwether Lewis Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $17,637.00 from the
Meriwether Lewis PTO. This donation will be used to pay the additional cost of the teacher’s assistance
time, the additional cost for the nurse, and the purchase of a computer for the library.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolutions of
Appropriation, thus approving the requests.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2004-085
DATE: 8/4/2004
EXPLANATION: EDUCATION PROGRAMS/DONATIONS/CAPITAL PROJECT
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 9000 60302 800656 WAHS WEIGHT ROOM J1 600.00
August 4, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
1 2302 61101 601300 INST/SUPPLIES J1 50.00
1 3135 60605 160300 STIPEND J1 2,215.13
1 3135 60605 210000 FICA J1 183.49
1 3207 61190 601300 INST/SUPPLIES J1 557.60
1 3117 63325 601300 INST/SUPPLIES J1 59.27
1 3124 61311 601300 INST/SUPPLIES J1 1,114.52
2 9000 18100 181123 WAHS WEIGHT ROOM J2 600.00
2 2000 18100 181109 DONATIONS J2 50.00
2 3135 51000 510100 GOALS 2000 AWARD J2 2,398.62
2 3207 51000 510100 CARL PERKINS J2 557.60
2 3117 51000 510100 FAMILY LITERACY J2 59.27
2 3124 51000 510100 MJH GRANT J2 1,114.52
9000 0501 EST REVENUE J 600.00
0701 APPROPRIATION J 600.00
2000 0501 EST REVENUE J 50.00
0701 APPROPRIATION J 50.00
3135 0501 EST REVENUE J 2,398.62
0701 APPROPRIATION J 2,398.62
3207 0501 EST REVENUE J 557.60
0701 APPROPRIATION J 557.60
3117 0501 EST REVENUE J 59.27
0701 APPROPRIATION J 59.27
3124 0501 EST REVENUE J 1,114.52
0701 APPROPRIATION J 1,114.52
TOTAL 9,560.02 4,780.01 4,780.01
_____
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO: 2004-086
DATE: 8/4/2004
EXPLANATION: FUNDING FOR JOINT ECC MOBILE DATA PROJECT
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 4115 31065 312700 PROF SERVICES J 1 113,000.00
1 4115 31065 520100 POSTAL J 1 236.12
1 4115 31065 600200 SUPPLIES J 1 500.00
2 4115 51000 510109 TRS FROM 800 MHz PROJ. J 2 113,736.12
4115 0501 EST REVENUE J 113,736.12
4115 0701 APPROPRIATION J 113,736.12
TOTAL 227,472.24 113,736.12 113,736.12
_____
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2004-087
DATE: 8/04/04
EXPLANATION: REIMBURSEMENT TO CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND FROM FOOD SERVICE
FUND BALANCE FOR CAFETERIA EQUIPMENT PURCHASED FOR BAKER-BUTLER
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 3000 93010 930004 TRANSFER TO CIP J 1 188,647.00
2 3000 51000 510100 TRANSFER FROM F/B J 2 188,647.00
2 9000 51000 512019 TNSFR FM FOOD SRV J 2 188,647.00
2 9000 51000 510100 APPROPRIATION -F/B J 2 (188,647.00)
3000 0501 ESTIMATED REVENUE J 188,647.00
0701 APPROPRIATION J 188,647.00
TOTAL 377,294.00 188,647.00 188,647.00
_____
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2004-088
DATE: 8/04/2004
EXPLANATION: EDUCATION PROGRAMS AND DONATIONS
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 3126 63328 601300 LEARN/SRV-EDUC SUPP J 1 585.31
1 2206 61101 160909 SALARIES J 1 17,087.00
1 2206 61101 800700 ADP EQUIPMENT J 1 550.00
2 3126 51000 510100 APPROPRIATON - F/B J 2 585.31
2 2000 18100 181109 DONATION J 2 17,637.00
3126 0501 EST REVENUE J 585.31
0701 APPROPRIATION J 585.31
2000 0501 EST REVENUE J 17,637.00
0701 APPROPRIATION J 17,637.00
TOTAL 36,444.62 18,222.31 18,222.31
__________
Item 5.6. Requested FY 2005 Appropriations.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that the Code of Virginia §15.2-2507 stipulates that any
locality may amend its budget to adjust the aggregate amount to be appropriated during the current fiscal
year as shown in the currently adopted budget. However, any such amendment which exceeds one
percent of the total expenditures shown in the currently adopted budget or the sum of $500,000, whichever
is lesser, must be accomplished by first publishing a notice of a meeting and holding a public hearing
before amending the budget. The total of these requested additional FY 2005 appropriations is
$408,663.63. It is anticipated that a budget amendment will be proposed in September, 2004 and these
appropriations incorporated into it.
This request involves the approval of four new FY 2005 appropriations as follows: One
August 4, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
appropriation (No. 2005-006) provides for the transfer of $164,322.93 in Fund Balance from the Fire Loan
Fund to the General CIP Fund Balance; one appropriation (No. 2005-007) allocating $19,340.70 in
additional State Fire Program Funds for equipment purchases in the Fire Rescue Department; one
appropriation (No. 2005-008) in the amount of $50,000.00 providing funding to bring Sunridge Road up to
State standards; and, one appropriation (No. 2005-009) in the amount of $175,000.00 providing funding for
three firefighters/ALS (advanced life support).
Appropriation No. 2005-006, $164,322.93. In the FY 2004-05 budget process, the budget for
Volunteer Fire and Rescue Departments took a significant step toward funding 100 percent of the volunteer
departments’ identified operating expenses through additional funds and restructuring of current
contributions. This restructuring of current contributions included forgiving the volunteer departments’
current outstanding debt owed to the County through its no interest loan fund. This appropriation provides
for the liquidation of the outstanding debt and the transfer of $164,322.93 in available fund balance from
the Fire Loan Fund to the General Capital Improvement Fund Balance.
Appropriation No. 2005-007, $19,340.70. Due to State budget concerns, the Department of Fire
Programs released FY 2003-04 Fire Program Funds to localities based on their FY 2002-03 allocations.
Normally allocations to localities are made based on the localities’ population. In June 2004, the County
received an additional $19,340.70 when the State released the remaining Fire Program Funds to localities.
The Fire Rescue Department has requested that this money be appropriated to purchase equipment for
volunteer and career fire operations. The additional funds were received in the previous fiscal year;
therefore, funding will be appropriated from the General Fund Balance.
Appropriation No. 2005-008, $50,000.00. Funding to bring Sunridge Road up to State standards as
approved by the Board of Supervisors on July 7, 2004.
Appropriation No. 2005-009, $175,000.00. Funding for three firefighters/ALS personnel to staff a
CARS ambulance during daytime hours and provide ALS training as approved by the Board of Supervisors
on July 7, 2004.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolutions of
Appropriation, thus approving the requests.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2005-005
DATE: 8/04/04
EXPLANATION: Recognition of additional State revenues for Bright Stars Program and
transfer of the additional matching local funds from the General Fund
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 1553 24000 240283 State Aid J 2 62,573.00
2 1553 51000 512004 Trs Fr G/F J 2 114,217.00
1 1553 61150 999999 Bright Stars Cont. J 1 176,790.00
1553 0501 Est Revenue J 176,790.00
1553 0701 Expenditure J 176,790.00
1 1000 53013 930208 Trs To Bright Stars J 1 114,217.00
2 1000 51000 510100 G/F Balance J 2 114,217.00
1000 0501 Est Revenue J 114,217.00
1000 0701 Expenditure J 114,217.00
TOTAL 582,014.00 291,007.00 291,007.00
_____
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2005-006
DATE: 08/04/04
EXPLANATION: Liquidation of outstanding fire and rescue loans and transfer of fire loan fund balance to General
Government CIP Fund Balance
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 1800 99100 900101 Loan Payments J 1 1,460,476.30
2 1800 41010 410900 Loan Red-Liquidation J 2 1,460,476.30
1 1800 93010 930010 Transfer to CIP J 1 164,322.93
2 1800 51000 510100 Appr-Fund Balance J 2 164,322.93
2 9010 51000 512042 Trns Fr Fire Fund J 2 164,322.93
2 9010 51000 510100 Appr-Fund Balance J 2 (164,322.93)
1800 0501 Est Revenue 1,460,476.30
0701 Appropriation 1,460,476.30
1800 0501 Est Revenue 164,322.93
0701 Appropriation 164,322.93
TOTAL 3,249,598.46 1,624,799.23 1,624,799.23
_____
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2005-007
DATE: 08/04/04
EXPLANATION: Allocation of additional fire program funds
August 4, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 1000 32015 950175 Fire-Ops-Fire Prog J 1 19,340.70
2 1000 51000 510100 Approp - FB J 2 19,340.70
1000 0501 Est Revenue J 19,340.70
0701 Appropriation J 19,340.70
TOTAL 38,681.40 19,340.70 19,340.70
_____
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2005-008
DATE: 08/04/04
EXPLANATION: Funding for Sunridge Road Improvements
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 9010 41020 950171 Sunridge Road J 1 50,000.00
2 9010 51000 510100 Approp - FB J 2 50,000.00
9010 0501 Est Revenue J 50,000.00
0701 Appropriation J 50,000.00
TOTAL 100,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00
_____
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2005-009
DATE: 08/04/04
EXPLANATION: During the July 7, 2004, Board of Supervisor’s meeting, the Board approved the proposal to hire three
Firefighter/ALS personnel to staff a CARS ambulance during daytime hours. The purpose of the
initiative is to provide a means to train newly certified ALS career and volunteer personnel and to provide
an additional staffed ambulance for the Northern 29 corridor.
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 1000 32015 110000 Salaries J 1 115,607.00
1 1000 32015 120000 Overtime J 1 6,000.00
1 1000 32015 210000 FICA J 1 8,706.00
1 1000 32015 221000 VRS J 1 8,670.00
1 1000 32015 231000 Health Ins J 1 13,824.00
1 1000 32015 232000 Dental Ins J 1 420.00
1 1000 32015 270000 Workers Comp J 1 2,116.00
1 1000 32015 601100 Uniforms & Appr J 1 11,500.00
1 1000 32015 311000 Medical J 1 1,557.00
1 1000 32012 312500 Prof Srs Educ J 1 6,600.00
2 1000 51000 510100 G/F Balance J 2 175,000.00 __
TOTAL 350,000.00 0.00 0.00
__________
Item 5.7. Adoption of resolution approving filing of application to the Virginia Public School
Authority for loan in principal amount not to exceed $9,630,300.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that funding for the FY 2004-05 Capital Improvement
Budget anticipated the issuance of $9,630,000 in bonds through the Virginia Public School Authority (VPSA)
for various school projects. Participation in the bond issue requires both the School Board and Board of
Supervisors to pass a resolution authorizing application to VPSA. It is anticipated at this time that the
School Board will pass the resolution at its meeting on August 12, 2004. The required application will be
submitted to VPSA by the August 31, 2004, deadline. A number of actions (resolutions, public hearings,
approvals) will be required between now and November, 2004 to meet the requirements of VPSA and
maintain its time schedule. The required documents will be submitted to the Board as received by the
Director of Finance from the County’s bond counsel. Staff requests approval of a resolution authorizing the
County’s application to the Virginia Public School Authority for $9,630,000 in bond revenues.
(Discussion: Mr. Boyd said he knows this funding is worked out by the CIP Technical Committee
and is part of the CIP approval process, but he is concerned about the County issuing bonds long before
the money is to be used. He asked how the money flows to the County, and does it sit around in cash for a
period of time.
Mr. Tucker said once the requests are made through the VPSA, the County starts drawing on that
sum, it is not received all at one time.
Mr. Boyd said he knows that sometimes projects in the CIP are deferred for years and moneys are
not appropriated. He wondered if the County would be making interest payments on bonds when a project
was not going forward. Mr. Tucker said “no.”)
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolution approving
of the filing of an application with the Virginia Public School Authority for a loan in an approximate
principal amount of $9,630,000.
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FILING OF AN APPLICATION
WITH THE VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITY FOR A
LOAN IN AN APPROXIMATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF
$9,630,000
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors (the “Board”) of Albemarle County, Virginia (the
“County”), in collaboration with the Albemarle County School Board, has determined that it is
August 4, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
necessary and desirable for the County to undertake capital improvements for its public school
system;
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY,
VIRGINIA:
1. The Board hereby approves the filing of an application with the Virginia Public School
Authority for a loan to the County in an approximate principal amount of $9,630,000 to finance
capital improvements for its public school system. The County Executive, in collaboration with the
other officers of the County and the Albemarle County School Board, is hereby authorized and
directed to complete an application and deliver it to the Virginia Public School Authority.
2. This resolution shall take effect immediately.
_____
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
SCHOOL PROJECTS
FY 2004/05
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1. ADA Structural Changes $ 50,000
2. Hollymead Elementary Building Renovations $ 757,000
3. Scottsville Elementary Construction $ 420,000
4. Southern Elementary School $ 1,625,000
5. Henley Middle School Building Renovations $ 2,833,000
6. Albemarle High School Construction $ 649,000
7. Murray Education Center Building Renovations $ 1,024,000
8. Maintenance Projects $ 2,272,000
TOTAL $ 9,630,000
__________
Item 5.8. Adoption of an ordinance to approve an Amendment to the Jefferson Area Board of
Aging (“JABA”) Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement to increase the size of the Board of JABA and to have
the membership of the Boards of JABA and of JABA, Inc., be identical. (Notice that this item would be
included on this agenda was published in the Daily Progress on July 21 and July 28, 2004.)
It was noted in the Executive Summary that JABA was created in 1975 by a Joint Exercise of
Powers Agreement between the counties of Albemarle, Greene, Nelson and Fluvanna and the City of
Charlottesville. Louisa County joined into the Agreement on August 9, 1977. Each jurisdiction agreed
to appoint members to the JABA Board of Directors for a total of 16 directors. Since then, JABA
established a 501(c)(3) organization, JABA, Inc., that has enabled them to expand their mission and
diversify their revenue base, thus better serving the older residents of the region. The Board of JABA,
Inc. includes all of the government-appointed members of the JABA Board, plus nine at-large
members selected by JABA. Most of their programs are funded by grants, contracts and donations to
both entities. Individual audits of each organization are completed annually, as well as a consolidated
audit.
The JABA Board unanimously adopted a resolution on May 24, 2004, to increase the size of
the Board of JABA to no more than 25, the same number of members as JABA, Inc., and to have the
membership of both boards be identical in order to improve the efficiency of both Boards and better
fulfill JABA’s mission. This requires amendment of the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement by the six
founding jurisdictions by adoption of an amending ordinance. The Chief Executive Officer and
Chairman of JABA have requested that Albemarle County adopt the proposed ordinance. It is believed
that the amendment of the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement to expand the JABA Board to include
the at-large members from the JABA, Inc. Board will facilitate the operations and policy-making of both
organizations.
Staff recommends adoption of the ordinance approving the Amendment to the Joint Exercise
of Powers Agreement and that the Board authorize the County Executive to execute the Amendment on
behalf of the County of Albemarle.
(Discussion: Mr. Boyd said he does not understand the reasoning behind this request. It appears
that JABA has evolved, expanded and created some subsidiary organizations. The request mentions that
they have a separate 501(c)(3) group that has a separate group of board members. He knows they also
have some for-profit partnership arrangements which are not mentioned. He asked if the Board could have
information on the rationale behind this request. This would obviously dilute the influence of this Board
because it would not be choosing all of the JABA board members anymore. He asked if a third of the
members would come from elsewhere.
Mr. Tucker said the Supervisors and other localities choose the members of JABA. Those
members then choose the members of JABA, Inc. They are trying to combine the members so there would
be only one meeting each month.
Mr. Boyd asked for additional information before the Board approves the request.
August 4, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
Mr. Davis said the primary purpose of this request is to simplify JABA’s board meetings. They now
have a JABA, Inc. meeting and a JABA Board of Directors’ meeting on the same day. Other than that, he
does not have a clear explanation as to the need for this change.
Mr. Boyd said he would like more information.
Mr. Rooker said it seems they are asking for two different things. One is for a change in board
structure which seems to him to be a matter of convenience. He does not see this as diluting this Board’s
influence on the JABA Board. Second, it is what the two organizations do, and how JABA is set up. He
suggested asking Mr. Gordon Walker to attend the Board’s meeting next month.
Mr. Boyd said he was surprised that this was actually a government-constituted organization. He
thought it was totally a private operation that the County contributed to. If it has significantly changed in the
last 30 years in the way they operate, and their structure, he sees no reason for it to be a quasi-government
agency. He thinks that if they are restructuring, the Board should look at the whole thing.
Mr. Rooker said he did not view this request as restructuring. They basically have two boards and
they are trying to streamline operations.
Ms. Thomas said when they first formed their for-profit section, one of the County’s appointees
was concerned and brought it to this Board’s attention. The Board had a long discussion about it at that
time and gave its blessing as an appropriate way to operate. For example, there are a lot of grants that
go to governmental entities. But, this Board is probably due for an update on what they are doing.
Mr. Boyd said he was curious as to how they keep up with all of the accounting. He has
received some comments from a constituent about their funding.
Mr. Tucker said staff will speak with Mr. Walker and Mr. Dick Gibson and have them attend a
Board meeting. In the meantime, does the Board want to take action on this item today? They must
present this for approval to all of the other jurisdictions as well.
Mr. Boyd said he does not have a problem with approving the request.
Mr. Rooker said they just need to come in and set out what they are doing.)
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following ordinance approving
the Amendment to JABA’s Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement, and authorized the County
Executive to execute the Amendment on behalf of the County of Albemarle.
ORDINANCE NO. 04-A(2)
AN ORDINANCE TO ADOPT AND APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO JABA’S JOINT EXERCISE
OF POWERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTIES OF ALBEMARLE, GREENE, NELSON,
FLUVANNA AND LOUISA, VIRGINIA, AND THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA, TO
INCREASE THE SIZE OF THE BOARD OF JABA AND TO HAVE THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE
BOARDS OF JABA AND OF JABA, INC. BE IDENTICAL.
WHEREAS, JABA was created in 1975 by Albemarle County and four other jurisdictions of
Planning District Ten pursuant to that certain Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement dated March 4,
1975 (with Louisa County signing the Agreement as the sixth jurisdiction of Region Ten on August
9, 1977), as amended on September 15, 1976, and May 18, 1977, all authorized pursuant to
Virginia Code § 15.2-1300, and
WHEREAS, JABA’s mission is to plan, advocate and serve the older residents of Planning
District Ten, and
WHEREAS, JABA created JABA, Inc., a 501(c)3 organization which better enables JABA
to fulfill this mission in part by having a broader based and larger board than JABA, and
WHEREAS, JABA, by resolution of its Board unanimously adopted on May 24, 2004,
proposes to increase the size of the board of JABA to no more than 25, the same number of
members as JABA, Inc., and to have the membership of both boards be identical in order to
improve the efficiency of both boards and better fulfill JABA’s mission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED THAT the Amendment to JABA’s Joint Exercise of
Powers Agreement between the Counties of Albemarle, Greene, Nelson, Fluvanna and Louisa,
Virginia, and the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, entitled “Amendment to the Joint Exercise of
Powers Agreement” dated September 1, 2004, pertaining to the increase in the size of the Board of
JABA and having the Boards of JABA and of JABA, Inc. be identical, attached hereto and
incorporated herein, is hereby approved, and that the County Executive is hereby authorized to
execute the Agreement on behalf of the County of Albemarle.
This ordinance shall be effective immediately.
_____
August 4, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
AMENDMENT TO
JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT
Jefferson Area Board for Aging
September 1, 2004
The March 4, 1975, Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement, as amended on September 15,
1976, and May 18, 1977, is hereby amended by deleting Section 7, as amended, and substituting
the following:
SECTION 7: The Board of the Jefferson Area Board for Aging shall consist of no more
than 25 members, the same number of members as the board of JABA affiliate JABA, Inc., and the
membership of both Boards shall be identical. The Board shall consist of two (2) representatives
appointed by the governing body of each member jurisdiction. In addition, the City of Charlottesville
and the County of Albemarle shall have two (2) additional representatives similarly appointed.
Each member shall have one equal vote in all matters before the Board. Each member of the
Board shall serve a term of two years. Members may be reappointed. Those members appointed
by the governing body of each member jurisdiction shall serve at the pleasure of the governing
body of their respective jurisdictions. The remaining members shall be known as at-large
members of the Board and they shall be elected by and serve at the pleasure of the Board of
JABA. To insure stability of membership and retention of experienced members on the Board,
initial terms of Board members shall be established to insure that not all Board members shall be
replaced at any one time.
WHEREFORE, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement, by their authorized
representatives, as of the day and year set forth above.
__________
Item 5.9. Devon Mobile Communications, L.P. proposed settlement.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that the County has been pursuing $502.36 in unpaid
personal property taxes from Devon Mobile Communications, L.P. for tax year 2003. Devon Mobile
Communications, L.P. currently is in bankruptcy proceedings, and is contesting the County’s tax claim.
Trhough its representative, Devon Mobile Communications, L.P. has offered to pay $250.00 in full
settlement of the County’s tax claim. Newly-enacted § 58.1-3994(B) now allows the
Virginia Code
Director of Finance to compromise and settle certain disputed tax assessments, with the consent of the
governing body or its designee. Before entering such a settlement, the Finance Director must
determine “that the collection of the entire amount due and owing is in substantial doubt and the best
interests of the locality will be served by such compromise.” In this case, the Finance Director concurs
in the County Attorney’s recommendation that the County accept this offer. Staff recommends that the
Board accept the compromise offer of Devon Mobile Communications, L.P. in full settlement of the
County’s claim for 2003 personal property taxes and adopt the proposed resolution.
(Discussion: Mr. Wyant said the Director of Finance is the person chosen to settle these tax
disputes, but in Item 5.10, the County Executive is the person set out to settle tax disputes. He asked if
the Board is okay legally with these two items.
Mr. Davis said the statute requires that the Director of Finance make a recommendation, and
then it would be authorized by the County Executive.)
By the recorded vote set out above the Board accepted the compromise offer of Devon
Mobile Communications, L.P. in full settlement of the County’s claim for 2003 personal property
taxes by adopting the following Resolution:
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE
OFFER IN COMPROMISE WITH RESPECT TO
TAXES OF DEVON MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS
WHEREAS, Devon Mobile Communications, L.P. has been assessed with $502.36 in
unpaid personal property taxes for tax year 2003; and
WHEREAS, Devon Mobile Communications, L.P. currently is in bankruptcy proceedings,
and is contesting the County’s tax claim; and
WHEREAS, through its representative, Devon Mobile Communications, L.P. has offered to
pay $250.00 in full settlement of the County’s tax claim; and
WHEREAS, the collection of the entire amount due and owing is in substantial doubt and
the best interest of the County will be served by such compromise; and
WHEREAS, § 58.1-3994(B) allows the Director of Finance to compromise
Virginia Code
and settle certain disputed tax assessments, with the consent of the governing body or its designee;
and
WHEREAS, the Director of Finance has recommended that the Board of Supervisors
accept the compromise offer of Devon Mobile Communications, L.P. in full settlement of the
County’s tax claim.
August 4, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, consents to the compromise offer of Devon Mobile Communications, L.P. of
$250.00 in full settlement of the County’s claim for 2003 personal property taxes.
__________
Item 5.10. Adoption of resolution authorizing County Executive to settle disputed tax assessments.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that Virginia Code § 58.1-3994(B) was amended effective
July 1, 2004, to allow the Director of Finance to compromise and settle certain disputed tax assessments,
with the consent of the governing body or its designee. The amount of such taxes must be in dispute and
there must be a determination by the Director of Finance that the entire amount due and owing is in
substantial doubt and the best interest of the County will be served by the settlement.
Virginia Code § 58.1-3994(B) allows a local governing body to name a designee to consent to
settlement offers on its behalf. Although staff does not believe there will be a significant number of these
settlements, it would be more efficient for such settlements to be approved without requiring action of the
Board at a public meeting. The statue permits the Board to designate the County Executive or some other
appropriate designee to consider and accept settlement offers. A proposed Resolution authorizing the
County Executive to consent to settlements of disputed tax assessments was forwarded with the Executive
Summary.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt a Resolution to authorize the County Executive to act as its
designee for the purpose of consenting to future offers in compromise and settlement of local taxes that are
in dispute.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolution authorizing
the County Executive to consent to settlements of disputed tax assessments:
RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE
COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO CONSENT TO
SETTLEMENTS OF DISPUTED TAX ASSESSMENTS
WHEREAS, § 58.1-3994(B) allows the Director of Finance to compromise
Virginia Code
and settle certain disputed tax assessments, with the consent of the governing body or its designee;
and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors finds that the County Executive is the appropriate
designee for these purposes.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, pursuant to § 58.1-3994(B),
Virginia Code
the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, authorizes the County Executive to act as
its designee for the purpose of consenting to offers in compromise and settlement of local taxes
that are in dispute.
__________
Item 5.11. Copy of letter dated July 12, 2004, from John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning
Administration, to Richard E. Carter, re: Official Determination of Development Rights and Parcels – Tax
Map 105, Parcel 11 (property of Grant E. Cosner or Barbara H. Cosner) Section 10.3.1, was received for
information.
_________
Item 5.12. Copy of letter dated July 12, 2004, from John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning
Administration, to Richard E. Carter, re: Official Determination of Development Rights and Parcels – Tax
Map 105, Parcels 35 and 48 (property of Buck Island L.L.C.) Section 10.3.1, was received for
information.
__________
Item 5.13. Copy of letter dated July 16, 2004, from John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning
Administration, to Tara Rowan Boyd, re: Official Determination of Development Rights and Parcels – Tax
Map 41, Parcel 47 & Tax Map 42, Parcels 3, 7 & 8 (property of C. Wilson McNeely, III and Carter F.
McNeely) Section 10.3.1, was received for information.
__________
Item 5.14. Copy of Albemarle County Service Authority’s operating budget for FY 2005, was
received for information.
__________
Item 5.15. Copy of application filed with the Virginia State Corporation Commission by Dominion
Virginia Power to revise its market prices for generation and resulting wires charges for Calendar Year 2005
(Case No. PUE-2001-00306). DVP did not propose any changes to the methodology used to derive market
prices for generation and resulting wire charges, as approved by the Commission for 2004. However, in
order to address a potential deficiency in the availability of off-peak pricing data for use in the Commission
approved methodology, the Company is proposing a plan for the Commission staff to administratively
supplement the off-peak pricing data as needed. Copy of this notice was received for information.
__________
Item 5.16. Report of Examination of Schedule of the Director of Finance’s Accountability to the
August 4, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
Commonwealth for the period July 1, 2003, through June 30, 2004, as prepared by the Auditor of Public
Accounts, was received for information.
__________
Item 5.17. Copy of draft Planning Commission minutes for April 6 and June 1, 2004, was received
for information.
__________
Item 5.18. Strategic Plan Quarterly Report was received for information, as follows:
It was noted in the Executive Summary that the Board developed the County’s Vision, Mission,
and Goal Statements in spring 2002. Staff developed a framework and timetable, targeted priorities,
and incorporated changes suggested by the Board at its October, 2002 and January, 2003 strategic
planning work sessions. The Board held its most recent annual strategic planning retreat in September,
2003 at which time the Board added a strategic goal regarding the County’s future growth and
urbanization. In April 2004, the Board approved the addition of four Life-Long Learning Goals. Twenty-
four initiatives that supported the County’s strategic plan were funded in the FY ‘04-05 budget and were
reflected in the County’s first business plan. Staff provides the Board Strategic Plan progress reports on
a quarterly basis.
The Board’s strategic plan continues to provide focus for the County. During the past quarter,
April, 2004 through June, 2004, the following activities took place:
Development of “Outcome” Performance Measures: The report outlining twenty strategic plan
outcome-based performance measures has been completed and presented to the County’s
Leadership Council. In July, staff will begin work to develop the accompanying measurement
system that will identify base line data and will establish a County-wide Balanced Score Card
reporting system.
2004 Citizen Survey Underway: During this quarter, the County’s 2004 Citizen Survey was
completed. Over 700 County residents were contacted by telephone to provide information on
their satisfaction with services and the County’s progress regarding the Strategic Planning goals.
UVA’s Center for Survey Research (CSR) is now in the process of analyzing this data. CSR will
submit their findings in a report to the County prior to the Board’s fall Strategic Planning retreat.
Community Profile: The Office of Management and Budget has begun the update of the 2003
Community Profile (aka, the Data Book). This information will be completed prior to the Board’s
Strategic Planning Retreat on October 9th.
Communication of the Strategic Plan: Twenty framed posters highlighting the County’s Vision,
Mission and Values have been posted in various locations throughout the County Office
Building. Strategic Plan updates are continuing to be posted to the County’s website. For the
first time, a strategic planning booth (which featured “Future Man”) was included at County Day
on May 5. Before the day was over, over 100 youth submitted pictures depicting their version of
“Albemarle County in the future” to County staff.
Leading Strategic Change: During this quarter, fourteen members of the County’s Leadership
Council completed a three-month seminar at UVA’s Darden Business School entitled “Leading
Strategic Change.” The Course was led by Dr. Alec Horniman.
Long Range Financial Planning/Strategic Budgeting: Staff has been meeting with Davenport
and Company, LLC, the County’s consultants who are developing the five-year financial
forecasting model, to provide information and finalize the model format. The model will be
available by this fall and will be further discussed at the Board’s Strategic Planning Retreat.
Extension of Plan of Action to FY ‘06: The current Plan of Action has been extended to align
with the County’s strategic planning cycle. At the upcoming October, 2004 Retreat, the Board
will review the County’s progress and new data, and make any desired adjustments to the last
year of the FY 2003-04/FY 2005-06 Plan of Action. At the Board’s Retreat the following year
(fall 2005), the Board will begin the County’s process for the development of a new strategic
plan.
Progress on Priority Objectives: Staff members continue their efforts to achieve the FY 2003-
04/FY 2005-06 Plan of Action’s priority objectives. Forward for the Board’s review is the
quarterly Priority Objectives progress report for the time period of April, 2004 through June,
2004.
(Discussion: Since Mr. Boyd will be out of town on the date which had been chosen for the
Board’s Fall Retreat, there was quite a lengthy discussion about finding another date for the meeting and
the importance of having that meeting before work begins on the FY 2005-06 budget. Because the
facilitator has a problem with her schedule if the date is moved, it was finally decided that the Retreat could
be held on a weekday. Staff will contact Board members to find a date on which all members can be
present.)
__________
Item 5.19. VDOT Monthly Report for August, 2004, received for information.
_______________
August 4, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
Agenda Item No. 6a. Transportation Matters not listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Jim Bryan, Resident Engineer, said all projects are on schedule. Airport Road is proceeding
well. Route 708 is ahead of schedule. Work on the bridge on Route 20 is a little ahead of schedule.
Mr. Dorrier said the paving of Route 20 South seems to be going well. The road has been widened
somewhat and that is good. Mr. Bryan said they are widening the shoulders as much as possible.
__________
Ms. Thomas said the monthly report says that repairs to the I-64 rest area are 65 percent complete.
She understood those repairs would involve a new way of dealing with sewage disposal, and it involved a
long sewer trunk line. Mr. Bryan said he does not know the details of that at this time. The contract is being
run out of Richmond.
__________
Ms. Thomas said she noticed a new sign on Route 29 that said trucks using the Route 250 bypass
should follow the “T”. She did not see any “T” symbols. Mr. Bryan said they are at the bypass. Ms.
Thomas said they were not visible. She said the signs should also say Route 29 South.
__________
Mr. Rooker asked about VDOT maintenance of sidewalks in the public right-of-way. Mr. Bryan said
VDOT has an agreement with the County; VDOT pays and the County maintains them.
Mr. Rooker asked who someone would call with a maintenance issue. Mr. Tucker said if it is a road
project with a typical concrete section, then VDOT maintains the sidewalk. The only sidewalk maintained
by the County is the one on Georgetown Road which was actually built by the County.
Mr. Dorrier asked if homeowners’ associations have any part in maintenance. Mr. Bryan said only if
they are not standard sidewalks and are off of the right-of-way.
Mr. Davis said the only homeowners association that entered into an agreement was Gray Rock.
That was before VDOT changed its policy on how sidewalks are accepted for maintenance.
__________
Mr. Boyd asked for an update on truck traffic on Routes 231/22. The Board reinforced its strong
opposition to such traffic on this road. There was strong opposition received from the public.
Mr. Bryan said it has hit a snag in terms of procedure. The trucking industry in Frederick County
challenged it. In October the Commonwealth Transportation Board’s procedure changed, and steps are
now very exact. Therefore, the Board must adopt that resolution again. VDOT met with County staff last
month and went through the steps again. The resolution has to be very precise, and the public notice
precisely written with graphics and maps. The last resolution was challenged, and he believes it was
rescinded because of that.
Mr. Cilimberg said this item will be coming back to the Board next month.
Mr. Boyd asked how much influence this Board has in the decision. Mr. Bryan said the Board has
quite a bit of influence. Mr. Butch Davies is quite interested in this matter. He heard that the Governor was
also inquiring about the question.
Mr. Rooker said he bumped into Mr. Davies yesterday and this issue was raised. He is concerned
about enforcement. He thinks lowering the speed limit might help. He thinks some of the trucks are
traveling this road at 60+ miles per hour.
Mr. Tucker said that a couple of years ago, the County’s Police Department along with VDOT, put
in a portable weigh station and caught several trucks which were well over the weight limit. He asked Mr.
Bryan if a warrant study needs to be done to determine a speed limit before the Board takes any action.
Mr. Bowerman said VDOT’s standard allows for the speeding, so the standard would need to be
changed.
Mr. Rooker said Mr. Davies believes the speed limit could be lowered from 55 mph to 45 mph. Mr.
Bryan said the speed limit is evaluated about once a year, and there are different speed limits on different
parts of the road. He will provide the Board a copy of VDOT’s procedures.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6b. Water Supply Alternatives, Presentation by Mr. Thomas Frederick.
Mr. Mike Gaffney, Chairman, Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority, said he made a presentation to the
Board in June concerning the Water Supply Plan. That plan contained 21 alternatives. Today’s
presentation is a list of the six alternatives which have been gone over with the regulators and the RWSA
Board of Directors. The presentation will be made by the Authority’s new Executive Director, Mr. Tom
Frederick. He said Mr. Frederick has 25 years experience as an engineer in water and wastewater
management. He spent time in North Carolina, including water and wastewater management in the City of
Asheville.
August 4, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
Mr. Dorrier welcomed Mr. Frederick to the County.
Mr. Frederick said he is glad to be a part of this community. He gave an overview of where RWSA
is in the process and will show how the six alternatives were derived. He handed to the Clerk a copy of the
full text of the report which is also on RWSA’s website. He said there are a lot of details in the report. In
order to be at this point in the process and in order to estimate impacts on the environment, they had to
make some assumptions. He said those assumptions are not final and will be retested. He then made a
PowerPoint presentation (copy on file in the Clerk’s office).
Mr. Frederick said the project steps are: updated safe yield and demand assumptions; developed
alternatives to increase the safe yield to meet expected demands in 2055; made a “short list” of alternatives
using regulatory criteria (this is the current step); there will be regulatory review and public comments taken;
they will make a detailed evaluation of the “short list” of alternatives; and, finally, an alternative will be
selected.
Mr. Rooker asked about the safe yield and demand chart. Mr. Gaffney said when the consultants
redid the demand analysis they could not use the 2002 year, and he does not think the 2003 data was
included because there were many things which occurred in those years which could not be accurately
predicted, so they threw out both extremes.
Mr. Rooker said he thought 2004 had had a lot of rainfall, but he heard it is running only about one
inch above normal. However, water usage is reported to be running over 10.0 million gallons per day. This
study started quite a few years ago so he wondered if the consultants had adjusted the starting point.
During this time, a lot of low-flow equipment has been installed in homes, and the area has lost several
industries which were heavy water users. He wonders if the assumption is high.
Mr. Gaffney said he personally thinks the assumption is high, but believes that when the data is
updated again in a couple of years, the demand curve will come down.
Mr. Wyant said he has a problem with the data because it appears to him that they just choose
certain years. He does not find that an acceptable way to analyze data.
Mr. Gaffney said the data for the safe yield and demand was done to meet the regulator’s
requirements. RWSA believes the last two years count, but the regulators would require them to redo
everything that has been done.
Mr. Boyd asked if there is a continuous model used for making projections. Mr. Gaffney said the
data is based on a period of time.
Mr. Frederick said his experience in dealing with the cyclical nature of demand and droughts is that
during a drought the demand drops in response to restrictions, and it can drop significantly. After the
drought is over, demand tends to lag for two to three years. Then there is a slow recovery to where it was
prior to the drought. In communities that do not practice aggressive water conservation on a continuing
basis, demand can get back to or exceed where it was before the drought. In communities like this one
which sustains water conservation practices, it might be hoped that it does not get back to where it was
before. He noted that in the Safe Yield & Demand scenarios they had looked at the water in the Beaver
Creek Reservoir. At this time, about 300,000 gallons per day is used for the Crozet system. The
computations by the consulting firm show that there could be as much as 3.5 mgd of water available in that
reservoir. The water that is not required to service Crozet could be used to augment the urban system. By
using that reservoir and changing management practices, the safe yield could be increased and that would
give 10 more years of available supply before some other project has to be physically in place. That is an
important concept to look at.
Mr. Boyd asked if there is the infrastructure in place to do that. Mr. Frederick said the basic
infrastructure is in place, but there may need to be some small things done. No additional pipes would
need to be built.
Mr. Tucker said the additional in-stream flow would go from Lickinghole Creek to the Mechum
River. At this time, only about one-half million gallons is being used in Crozet, leaving 3.5 millions gallons
available. Even with total build-out of Crozet, the projection is only for 1.1 mgd. There is a lot of capacity
available.
Mr. Rooker asked what kind of release is taking place today from Beaver Creek.
Mr. Frederick said the reservoir stays at normal pool level most of the time. When excess water is
drawn in it does not go to the water plant, but goes through the dam and into the stream. Only in a severely
dry period does the reservoir drop.
Ms. Thomas said the Mechum River is the most erodible of the rivers. If this option were chosen,
would that increase the sediment in the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir?
Mr. Frederick said that would be monitored, but he does not think the amount of water being talked
about would make a significant impact.
Mr. Bowerman said it would just be in the riverbed.
Mr. Frederick said the release would be in the riverbed.
August 4, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
Mr. Wyant said the dam itself helps to control erosion. He said the lines on the graph do not show
the natural siltation in Beaver Creek and there would be some loss. An educated guess should be made of
that.
Mr. Frederick said that is part of the details which have not been worked out yet. He continued with
the slide presentation. He said that 21 water supply alternatives were identified. The objective was to
identify the least environmentally damaging, practicable alternative, taking into account overall project
purposes, feasibility, logistics and cost. He hopes this is what the community is interested in as the outcome
of the project. He said the State and Federal regulators will force RWSA to abide by what is written. A
solution has to be found that fits in this community and satisfies the regulators in order to obtain a permit.
Mr. Frederick showed a list of criteria used to screen the alternatives and address regulatory
concerns particularly the soundest environmental option. That includes impacts on wetlands and streams,
costs, logistical issues, cultural resources, threatened and endangered species, land acquisition area, etc.
He said that in the full report there are preliminary cost estimates on the different alternatives. The
numbers range from $69.0 million to $119,000 million. This covers a 50-year plan for water supply. Some
phasing is possible. Once the RWSA has the permit, serious financial planning must be done. Through
that will come the impact on the community and the rates, issues which would be part of another study.
Mr. Frederick showed the alternatives on the “short list.” He said that when the last report was
made, there were some new reservoirs shown. Those have been eliminated from the short list primarily
due to environmental impacts. Any new reservoir considered had wetland impacts and stream impacts.
When there are alternatives available which do not have those impacts, it would be very difficult under the
National Environmental Policy Act to build a new reservoir. The community has been through that process
before. Any increase in the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir above four feet has been eliminated from further
consideration at this time. They did look at an eleven-foot increase which could in one project capture all
the additional volume of water needed, but it would create more substantial environmental impacts.
Mr. Frederick said the expansion of the Sugar Hollow Reservoir was looked at briefly. It is no
longer under consideration because in addition to similar environmental impacts, it would also impact
Federal lands in the Shenandoah National Park. Pump-back from the Moores Creek Wastewater
Treatment Plant was briefly considered in order to add another component of treatment onto the
wastewater plant. The Department of Health has significant concerns which make that alternative difficult to
work through. He said neither staff nor the consultants have picked any one alternative as being the best.
All projects on the list will be proposed for further study and evaluation before anymore sorting is done.
Mr. Dorrier asked how the “short list” was derived.
Mr. Frederick said they looked at every alternative using the list of criteria. The ones that did not fit
the criteria were eliminated, and the ones that had the fewest impacts remained on the list. Initially they
wanted to look at six alternatives, but ended up with five.
Mr. Boyd said he is interested in the criteria used. Mr. Frederick said there is a table in the report
based on mapping information such as the number of acres of wetlands which would be affected, the linear
feet of streams which would be impacted by the alternatives, etc.
Mr. Boyd said he thinks pulling water from the James River would have some environmental
impacts downstream. Mr. Frederick there is a significant amount of flow in the James River even in dry
periods. There is well over 100.0 million gallons per day. The impact on the River, while it must be
considered, would not be as severe as taking that amount of water from the Rivanna watershed.
Mr. Bowerman said most of that water gets back to the James River anyway.
Mr. Boyd said he has read many stories concerning impacts downstream and the cities and
counties that become upset with the upstream people.
Mr. Wyant asked if each of the criteria carries the same weight, no systems approach was taken to
these calculations. He said some things have a bigger impact than others. Mr. Frederick said that at this
point it is based on mapping information, not field survey information. More detailed field investigation has
yet to be done.
Ms. Thomas said the earlier list focused on preserving the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. The
future of that reservoir is very important to Albemarle County. An alternative such as going to the James
River and letting the reservoir undergo a natural death will have this Board more involved than some of the
other alternatives.
Mr. Frederick said he would hope that whatever alternative is selected, the RWSA will not let the
natural resources in the community die. There are things that can be done no matter which option is
selected, if the community is willing.
Mr. Bowerman asked if Mr. Frederick was speaking financially.
Mr. Frederick said he cannot get into the details of some things now, because they are not far
enough along in the process to talk about details.
Mr. Bowerman said he was talking about the criteria they would use to address Ms. Thomas’
August 4, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
concern. Would it be public concern which would do it, or the financial cost of allowing something like that
to happen. Dredging the reservoir might not be a cost efficient way to look at it.
Mr. Frederick said until the alternatives to getting more water are known, they cannot say how
resources would be protected. He just wanted to say that regardless of which option is selected, they will
address those issues.
Mr. Tucker said the options presented by Mr. Frederick may be a combination of two or more of
these concepts. That has not been decided yet.
Mr. Wyant said his earlier question was not directed toward mapping, etc. One of the criteria might
carry a weight of 40 percent to the decision. Sometimes costs might dictate what is done, and the impact
upon the stream might carry more weight than any of the other criteria. Once the weight factor is
established, then the appropriate alternative can be selected.
Mr. Frederick said if they have looked at any alternative that has higher impacts than another, it is
on the list of alternatives he will present.
Mr. Rooker said prudent, feasible alternatives that minimize the impacts need to be selected. He
understands the ones discarded had less chance of gaining approval because other alternatives have less
impacts.
Mr. Frederick said State and Federal agencies will look at this process to see if the alternatives
selected have low impacts. The ones with higher impacts must be thrown out, and that is basically what
they are doing at this time. He said the James River Intake project could be a stand-alone project for the
RWSA or it could be a cooperative regional arrangement with other localities. He said the second option is
raising the dam at the Ragged Mountain Reservoir. There will be some extensive rehabilitation of that dam
undertaken regardless of whether it becomes a part of the future water supply of if it maintains the same
size. Because of the condition that exists at the dam now, in the near future there must be some extensive
modifications made. Preliminarily it appears feasible although approval issues exist. Some impacts have
come up. One has to do with where it would be raised in the vicinity of I-64. It does not have the impacts
that NEPA is looking for, but they must talk with VDOT about its issues. The next phase of the process will
determine whether this is a feasible alternative.
Mr. Frederick said the next alternative is the addition of four-foot crest gates on the South Fork
Rivanna Reservoir. He said there are also some small environmental impacts associated with this option. It
is possible it would pass the NEPA test; more extensive evaluation must be done. The four-foot crest would
not provide the amount of water needed for the 50-year plan. In order for this alternative to work it would
have to be combined with other options. It could be combined with use of Beaver Creek after allowing for
Crozet’s needs. It could be a smaller increase at Ragged Mountain, it could be dredging, or other
components. He said dredging is an option that needs to be looked at in detail. There are questions about
costs and logistics, but at this time it merits extensive consideration. Dredging would not provide all of the
50-year needs, so it also would have to be combined with other options.
Mr. Boyd asked if the four-foot option would have an impact on a couple of highway bridges in the
area. Mr. Tucker said “yes.” Mr. Frederick said the assumption at this time is that there would need to be
new bridges built. The final answer to that question would be based on discussions with VDOT. There
would definitely need to be a replacement bridge over Ivy Creek.
Mr. Frederick said the last alternative would be use of Beaver Creek. It could be an interim solution
or used as a long-term solution. They are going to look at the flood storage that was assumed when that
dam was built. There is an indication there may be greater storage area than necessary for flood control. If
that is the case, there is the possibility of increasing slightly the amount of additional yield by making a few
capital modifications.
Mr. Frederick said that is the list of five concepts that the Authority will continue to pursue. In
closing, he showed a list of Federal and State regulatory agencies involved in these concepts. Several
months of effort will be involved in seeking an endorsement of the final concept. He said there was a kick-
off meeting with regulatory agencies in July and there are continuing discussions with those agencies. The
supplemental evaluation report has been presented to the RWSA Board, and last week this document was
submitted to both the Federal and State agencies, and it is being reviewed here today. The next step will be
to review the “short list” in greater detail. They propose to have a public meeting in the next couple of
months to get comments locally. He said the schedule in the future will be driven by the regulatory review.
Their goal is to have agreement, both locally and at the State and Federal levels, by next Spring so the
pathway is clear to apply for the necessary permits.
Mr. Rooker asked if four alternatives were proposed, would they be approved as a package, or
approved separately. Mr. Frederick said there is a water quality permit process and a Corps permit
process, and he envisions that a permit would be obtained from the Corps of Engineers that would apply to
the entire package of decisions. He said there will be additional permits because there are requirements
that must be met if the water treatment plant is expanded or a new intake added. Both would require
permits. To enlarge a dam requires a separate permit. Once the Authority gets through the big process,
then individual permits would focus on design of the projects themselves as opposed to how they impact
the overall environment and overall community.
Mr. Dorrier said some people wonder if the RWSA should be put under a new agency, or a
combination of agencies, even political bodies dealing with the water issue. He asked Mr. Frederick if he
August 4, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
thinks the present structure is appropriate for this community.
Mr. Frederick said if it is the will of the community to maintain the current structure, his goal is to
work within that structure. He works for the RWSA Board and he makes no other commitments, and in the
end, their wishes. To sort of answer the question, in being in other communities he has seen different
structures in different communities. He worked in a community where the city controlled everything in the
city and the county controlled everything in the county, and the city built a water plant, and the county built a
water plant. There are difficulties with that structure. He has seen communities where an authority runs
everything, and there are difficulties and issues with that sort of structure. He said no community that he
has been in that tried to do regional work can find the perfect organizational structure. No matter what the
organization responsibilities are between agencies, he believes communication is the key to success. If
agencies do not communicate with each other (regardless of what type of system there is), the system will
fail. One of his personal goals is to build and open lines of communication where they have been weak in
the past, and maintain those lines where they are strong.
Mr. Boyd asked how much attention will be paid to impacts on groundwater in the decisions to be
made. He thinks that needs to be included in the studies.
Mr. Frederick said that just like the other criteria that will be looked at, they must make sure that all
issues with respect to groundwater are addressed. He knows the single most important thing pertaining to
groundwater in the community is the Comprehensive Plan and enforcement of the County’s Water
Protection Ordinance. He has talked with Mr. Mark Graham about working together to understand
groundwater impacts. One of those discussions concerned the Ivy Area where the Solid Waste Authority is
working hard to promote groundwater. He wants to be sure that the things RSWA is working on are
coordinated with the things the County is working on in the development process.
Mr. Wyant said there was discussion several years ago of the release rate on the dams. Two of the
dams are located in his district. He assumes that when the report is finished, there will be mention of how
to do the release rate from the Moormans River and the Crozet community. Mr. Frederick said that will be
addressed.
Mr. Dorrier thanked Mr. Frederick for the report.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7. Virginia Housing Development Authority - Affordable Housing Campaign:
Overview of Housing Virginia by Ron White.
Mr. Ron White, Housing Director, said that on August 17, 18 and 19, Albemarle County and
Albemarle Housing Improvement Program are co-hosting the State’s housing rehabilitation conference. It
is an annual conference. He extended an invitation to all Board members to attend the meeting. He said
that last year while making his housing report he mentioned a Housing Virginia campaign which was under
consideration by the Virginia Housing Development Authority as well as a number of partner agencies
across the state. He said this program is ready to begin and Charlottesville is the pilot area for this public
awareness program. He then introduced Mr. David Jeffers, Director of the Northern Virginia Partnership
Office for “Fannie Mae”, to make the presentation for Housing Virginia.
Mr. Jeffers said that two years ago a group of people got together under the auspices of Ms. Susan
Dewey, Director of VHDA, to figure out a way to get people aware of the need to create housing affordability
throughout Virginia. There was a common goal among the participants who worked for a year on this
matter. Ultimately, they formed a nonprofit called Housing Virginia. The idea for this came from people like
the Board because so many were trying to create affordable housing opportunities and they were faced with
two barriers. One was the misconception on the part of the ordinary citizen about what the issue is so they
might react based on fear rather than knowledge. Second, lots of public officials came to them in their
individual capacities and said they understood the basic principal of the need to focus on the housing needs
of municipal workers, maintenance workers, firemen, teachers, young professionals and the elderly. So,
they formed a nonprofit to figure out how to launch a public awareness campaign that would reach the
ordinary citizen and provide boards of supervisors and other interested people, the kind of informational
resources needed to analyze how to best go about this. For most of the last year, they have put together a
prototype of an advertising campaign, a speaker’s bureau structure, lots of material, a website. They
wanted to launch this on a pilot basis, and they chose Charlottesville for a couple of reasons. There are
advertising costs involved (they raised these costs both privately and publicly). Secondly, the Charlottesville
area offers a microcosm of all the variety of housing challenges that everyone faces. Third, there was
already a body of support both in the County and in the City in trying to grapple with these issues. They
could not go to a locality where there was total opposition and no base of potential partners. This area
offers that. They have been briefing through Ms. Dewey and Mr. Kip Hale who is a realtor from Roanoke
and is a member of the Virginia Association of Realtors.
Mr. Jeffers said they do not have an agenda other than working with the governing body and
working with the ordinary citizen. There is no particular way to implement affordable housing. They need to
figure out what the needs are in this area and the Board can say what is not needed and where they might
be making mistakes. Also, they will provide a line of communication in case the Board has concerns about
this program. Lastly, there are a lot of things being talked about: rental housing, homeownership, financing
opportunities, being sure the citizens understand what they might perceive physically as affordable housing
is not always reality, fighting predatory lending practices that keep people from affording a home, etc.
Mr. Dorrier thanked Mr. Jeffers for the report.
_______________
August 4, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
Agenda Item No. 8. Public hearing to consider adoption of an ordinance to amend section 2-104,
Samuel Miller Magisterial District, of Article I, Elections, of Chapter 2, Administration, of the Albemarle
County Code to change the polling place for the East Ivy Precinct of the Samuel Miller Magisterial District
from the Kappa Sigma Auditorium, 2445 Ivy Road, to the Miller Center, 2201 Old Ivy Road. (Notice of this
public hearing was published in the Daily Progress on July 21 and July 28, 2004.)
Mr. Tucker said Virginia Code § 24.2-307 requires that the Board establish polling places by
ordinance. Albemarle County Code § 2-104(C)(2) establishes the Kappa Sigma Auditorium as the
polling place for the East Ivy Precinct in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. The Albemarle County
Electoral Board recently recommended that the polling place be changed to the Miller Center of Public
Affairs (the “Miller Center”). The proposed change to the polling place for the East Ivy Precinct is
necessary because the Kappa Sigma Auditorium will no longer be available as a polling place. The
Miller Center is located at 2201 Old Ivy Road, which is outside of the East Ivy Precinct. However, it may
be used as a polling place because it is within one mile of the East Ivy Precinct boundary (Virginia Code
§ 24.2-310). Staff visited the site to assure its suitability as a polling place. Staff recommends that the
Board adopt the proposed ordinance after holding the public hearing.
Ms. Jackie Harris, Registrar, said this change will take affect this November. Once she gets pre-
clearance from the Department of Justice for this change, every registered voter in the Precinct will be
notified of the change.
At this time, Mr. Dorrier opened the public hearing. With no one from the public rising to speak, the
public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board.
Motion was immediately offered by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Boyd, to adopt An Ordinance to
Amend Chapter 2, Administration, Article I, Elections, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, by
amending Sec. 2-104, Samuel Miller District Magisterial District, as set out below.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
ORDINANCE NO. 04-2(2)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 2, ADMINISTRATION, ARTICLE I, ELECTIONS, OF THE
CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 2,
Administration, Article I, Elections, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 2-104 Samuel Miller District Magisterial District
Chapter 2. Administration
Article I. Elections
Sec. 2-104 Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
The Samuel Miller Magisterial District shall be bounded, and contain voting precincts and
polling places, as follows:
A. : Beginning at the intersection of the Mechums River and
Description of district
Garth Road (State Route 614); then east on Garth Road (State Route 614) to its intersection with
Garth Road (State Route 676); then southeast on Garth Road (State Route 676) to its intersection
with Garth Road (State Route 601); then southeast on Garth Road (State Route 601) to its
intersection with Ivy Creek; then meandering southwest with Ivy Creek to its intersection with Old
Ballard Road (State Route 677); then southeast on Old Ballard Road to its intersection with
Broomley Road (State Route 677); then south on Broomley Road to its intersection with the CSX
Railway right-of-way; then east along the CSX Railway right-of-way to its intersection with the U.S.
Route 29/250 Bypass; then south on U.S. Route 29/250 Bypass to its intersection with U.S. Route
250 Business; then east on U.S. Route 250 Business to its intersection with Reed Lane; then south
on Reed Lane to Lewis Mountain Parkway; then south on Lewis Mountain Parkway to its
intersection with the fire road connecting Edgemont Road and Lewis Mountain Parkway; then south
along said fire road to its intersection with Edgemont Road; then south on Edgemont Road to its
intersection with McCormick Road; then east on McCormick Road to its intersection with Alderman
Road; then south on Alderman Road to its intersection with the limits of the City of Charlottesville;
then following the Charlottesville City limits west and south to the intersection with Sunset Avenue
Extended (State Route 781); then south on Sunset Avenue Extended to its intersection with
Mountainwood Road; then east on Mountainwood Road to its intersection with Old Lynchburg Road
(State Route 780); then south on Old Lynchburg Road (State Route 780) to Old Lynchburg Road
(State Route 631); then south on Old Lynchburg Road (State Route 631) to its intersection with a
western branch of Biscuit Run, then east along a western branch of Biscuit Run to its confluence
August 4, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
with Biscuit Run; then south on Biscuit Run to its confluence with an eastern branch of Biscuit Run;
then continuing east along the eastern branch of Biscuit Run to its intersection with Scottsville Road
(State Route 20); then south on Scottsville Road to its intersection with Red Hill Road (State Route
708); then immediately west on Red Hill Road to its intersection with the North Fork Hardware
River; then meandering southwest on the North Fork Hardware River to its confluence with the
Hardware River and the South Fork Hardware River; then southwest along the South Fork
Hardware River to its confluence with Eppes Creek; then southwest on Eppes Creek to its
confluence with Beaver Branch; then meandering southwest on Beaver Branch to its intersection
with Plank Road (State Route 712); then west on Plank Road to its intersection with Alberene Road
(State Route 719); then south on Alberene Road to its intersection with Secretarys Sand Road
(State Route 717); then southwest on Secretarys Sand Road to its intersection with Green Creek
Road (State Route 630); then west on Green Creek Road to its intersection with Bungletown Road;
then northwest on Bungletown Road to its intersection with Barbershop Hill Road; then southwest
along Barbershop Hill Road to its intersection with Appleberry Mountain Trail; then southwest along
Appleberry Mountain Trail to its intersection with the unnamed southern tributary of Bear Creek;
then meandering southwest along the unnamed southern tributary of Bear Creek to its confluence
with Bear Creek; then continuing southwest along Bear Creek to its intersection with the
Albemarle/Nelson County line; then northwest along the Albemarle/Nelson County line to the
unnamed northern branch of the Mechums River; then east along the unnamed northern branch of
the Mechums River to its confluence with the Mechums River; then meandering northeast along the
Mechums River to its intersection with Garth Road, the point of origin.
B. : The district shall be divided into four (4) voting precincts, as
Voting precincts
described herein:
1. : Beginning at Sunset Avenue Extended (State
Country Green Precinct
Route 781) and the underpass of Interstate 64; then south on Sunset Avenue Extended to its
intersection with Mountainwood Road; then east on Mountainwood Road to its intersection with Old
Lynchburg Road (State Route 780); then south on Old Lynchburg Road (State Route 780) to Old
Lynchburg Road (State Route 631); then south on Old Lynchburg Road (State Route 631) to its
intersection with a western branch of Biscuit Run, then east along a western branch of Biscuit Run
to its confluence with Biscuit Run; then south on Biscuit Run to its confluence with an eastern
branch of Biscuit Run; then continuing east along this eastern branch of Biscuit Run to its
intersection with Scottsville Road (State Route 20); then south on Scottsville Road to its intersection
with Red Hill Road (State Route 708); then northwest on Red Hill Road to its intersection with the
Southern Railway right-of-way; then northeast along the Southern Railway right-of-way to its
intersection with Interstate 64; then southeast on Interstate 64 to its underpass at Sunset Avenue
Extended, the point of origin.
2. : Beginning at the intersection of the western limits of the
East Ivy Precinct
City of Charlottesville and Sunset Avenue Extended (State Route 781); then south along Sunset
Avenue Extended to its intersection with Interstate 64; then west on Interstate 64 to its intersection
with Dick Woods Road (State Route 637); then north on Dick Woods Road to its intersection with
Bloomfield Road (State Route 677); then northeast on Bloomfield Road to its intersection with U.S.
Route 250; then east along U.S. Route 250 to its intersection with Broomley Road (State Route
677); then north on Broomley Road to its intersection with the CSX Railway right-of-way; then east
along the CSX Railway right-of-way to its intersection with U.S. Route 29/250 Bypass; then south on
U.S. Route 29/250 Bypass to its intersection with U.S. Route 250 Business; then east on U.S. Route
250 Business to its intersection with Reed Lane; then south on Reed Lane to Lewis Mountain
Parkway; then south on Lewis Mountain Parkway to its intersection with the fire road connecting
Edgemont Road and Lewis Mountain Parkway; then south along said fire road to its intersection
with Edgemont Road; then south on Edgemont Road to its intersection with McCormick Road; then
east on McCormick Road to its intersection with Alderman Road; then south on Alderman Road to
its intersection with the limits of the City of Charlottesville; then following the Charlottesville City
limits west and south to the intersection with Sunset Avenue Extended, the point of origin.
3. : Beginning at the intersection of the Mechums River and Garth
Ivy Precinct
Road (State Route 614); then east on Garth Road (State Route 614) to its intersection with Garth
Road (State Route 676); then southeast on Garth Road (State Route 676) to its intersection with
Garth Road (State Route 601); then southeast on Garth Road (State Route 601) to its intersection
with Ivy Creek; then meandering southwest with Ivy Creek to its intersection with Old Ballard Road
(State Route 677); then southeast on Old Ballard Road to its intersection with Broomley Road
(State Route 677); then south on Broomley Road to its intersection with U.S. Route 250; then west
on U.S. Route 250 to its intersection with Bloomfield Road (State Route 677); then southwest on
Bloomfield Road to its intersection with Dick Woods Road (State Route 637); then southwest on
Dick Woods Road to its intersection with Interstate 64; then west on Interstate 64 to its intersection
with the Mechums River; then meandering northeast with the Mechums River to its intersection with
Garth Road, the point of origin.
4. : Beginning at the intersection of Interstate 64 and the
Red Hill Precinct
Mechums River; then meandering southwest along the Mechums River to its confluence with the
unnamed northern branch of the Mechums River; then continuing west along the unnamed
northern branch of the Mechums River to the Albemarle/Nelson County line; then southeast along
the Nelson County line to its intersection with Bear Creek; then meandering northeast along Bear
Creek to its confluence with an unnamed southern tributary of Bear Creek; then continuing
northeast along the unnamed tributary to its intersection with Appleberry Mtn. Trail; then northeast
August 4, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
along Appleberry Mtn. Trail to its intersection with Barbershop Hill Road; then northeast on
Barbershop Hill Road to its intersection with Bungletown Road; then southeast on Bungletown
Road to its intersection with Green Creek Road (State Route 630); then east on Green Creek Road
to its intersection with Secretarys Sand Road (State Route 717); briefly northeast on Secretarys
Sand Road to its intersection with Alberene Road (State Route 719); then north on Alberene Road
to its intersection with Plank Road (State Route 712); then east on Plank Road to its intersection
with Beaver Branch; then meandering northeast on Beaver Branch to its confluence with Eppes
Creek; then northeast on Eppes Creek to its confluence with the South Fork Hardware River; then
meandering northeast on the South Fork Hardware River to its confluence with the North Fork
Hardware River and the Hardware River; then meandering northeast on the North Fork Hardware
River to its intersection with Red Hill Road (State Route 708); then northwest along Red Hill Road
to its intersection with the Southern Railway right-of-way; then northeast along the Southern
Railway right-of-way to its intersection with Interstate 64; then west on Interstate 64 to its
intersection with the Mechums River, the point of origin.
C. : Each voting precinct shall have a polling place at the location
Polling places
identified below:
1. : Berean Baptist Church, 1284 Sunset Avenue
Country Green Precinct
Extended.
2. : The Miller Center of Public Affairs, 2201 Old Ivy Road.
East Ivy Precinct
3. : Meriwether Lewis Elementary School, 1610 Owensville Road.
Ivy Precinct
4. : Red Hill Elementary School, 3901 Red Hill School
Red Hill Precinct
Road.
(8-19-71, § 1; 9-5-72; 7-15-81; Code 1988, § 6-1; 5-15-91; Ord. 95-6(1), 1-11-95; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-
5-98, § 2-100(4), § 2-104; Ord. 01-2(1), 5-9-01; Ord. 04-2(2), 8-4-04)
(Note: At 10:45 a.m., the Board recessed and reconvened at 11:03 a.m. Ms. Carey left the
meeting at 10:45 a.m. and Ms. Sharon Taylor arrived to serve as Deputy Clerk.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. Urban Development Position, Discussion of.
Mr. Tom Mr. Foley said that at its meeting on July 7, the Board discussed the regional and local
economic development policies and provided input regarding the update to the local policy to be reviewed
by the Planning Commission this fall. As a part of that discussion, the Board requested that staff provide an
outline of the newly created urban development position established during the budget process and bring it
before the Board for review and discussion. As the Board will recall, this position was proposed to address
urban development needs and was recommended in the Crozet Master Plan. Establishment of such a
position has also been discussed through proposed actions in the County’s Strategic Plan.
Mr. Foley said the general description for the position as originally stated in the County’s Business
Plan and reviewed with the Board during the budget process is as follows:
“This initiative funds an urban development position to focus on activities related to development of
the County’s master planned and other urban areas. This will include working with business and
real estate interests in bringing about the core business and economic activity needed to realize
vibrant neighborhood and business centers. The position will also be involved in the development
of key public infrastructure projects, including the evaluation of possible funding alternatives and
partnerships.”
Mr. Foley said the following information was developed from the initial outline for the position and
from job descriptions that currently exist in other localities with similar goals for promoting the development
of “downtown” or urban areas:
“This position will focus on activities related to development of the County’s master planned and other
urban areas to bring about the core business and economic activity needed to realize vibrant
neighborhood and business centers. These activities will reflect Comprehensive Plan goals, objectives
and strategies for the Development Areas and will include:
?
Acting as the primary contact and facilitator for new and expanding business and development.
?
Assisting local business with planning, zoning, regulatory, financing and small business
assistance questions and processes.
?
Developing partnerships with other public and private entities to encourage entrepreneurial
activity and business development.
?
Developing outreach efforts to proactively work with businesses and developers to identify
problems and opportunities.
?
Developing innovative approaches to marketing these areas as vibrant, economically
prosperous locations to develop and conduct business. Arranging and conducting prospect
visits, briefings, tours and itineraries.
?
Managing current and researching new financial incentive packages available to recruit and
August 4, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
retain business and development.
?
Participating in the planning and development of key public infrastructure projects necessary to
support these areas, including the evaluation of possible funding alternatives and partnerships.
?
Conducting research and assisting in the initiation and development of policy, strategies and
program options to promote commercial development and revitalization, which advance the
economic development goals of the County.
?
Utilizing local programs, County resources, land resources, and state and federal programs to
develop and/or facilitates private and public/private ventures that will combine the
entrepreneurial spirit of the private sector with policies and resources of the County.”
Mr. Foley said the focus of the position will be on working with the business community on private
and public development in the urban and master planned areas. It will be project rather than marketing
focused, based on the needs of the various urban areas. This is in contrast to providing marketing of the
County as an attractive business location, which is the typical focus of an economic development position.
He said this was placed on the agenda for general discussion with the Board regarding the focus of the
position. Staff welcomes any input the Board members may have regarding the outline above and hopes to
use that input in finalizing the position description and eventual work plan.
Mr. Dorrier asked when this person will be hired. Mr. Foley said the position was funded as of July
1, so when the job title and description are finalized, it could take a month to get the position advertised. It
is likely to be a position for only one-half of this fiscal year.
Mr. Wyant asked where the position will be in the organization. Mr. Foley said this person would be
working with the planning staff, General Services on capital projects, and the County Executive’s Office
which is working on partnerships now trying to find a way to build the new Crozet library. In the
organizational chart, the position would answer directly to the Director of Community Development. That is
important because it is not just about planning, but more about implementation.
Mr. Dorrier asked what percentage of this person’s time would be devoted to the Crozet Master
Plan. Mr. Foley said there is a more flushed out plan in Crozet than for other areas of the County. The
library project in Crozet has already been funded and this is the year for design. This position is not just
about the Crozet Master Plan, but about the urban areas and the master planned areas. The overall
strategy is about the Development Areas.
Ms. Thomas said the description above (the bullets) did not quite capture what she had envisioned
this position would do. She was trying to put it into words and suggested maybe adding an addition bullet
reading: “This position would facilitate land and building development that is recommended in the master
plan, especially as these involve multiple private and public ownerships and investment.”
She said all might think about the library and privately owned parking lot, but she is thinking of
something else. She thinks the area will reach a point where some shopping centers will fail because there
are new centers constantly being built now. She thinks the County will be faced with redevelopment of
those old centers. That will be another case of public buildings and private ownership and there needs to
be someone who can negotiate to help create new developments in old areas, which is what Crozet is.
That is land development as opposed to economic development.
Mr. Foley said he thinks that description is consistent with what staff has been thinking about; that is
revitalization of some areas as part of this position.
Mr. Tucker said the Comdial Building might be a part of Ms. Thomas’ description, trying to revitalize
existing land area and existing structures to make them vital again, particularly in the Development Areas.
Mr. Boyd agreed with Ms. Thomas’ suggestion. He did have some concern about the statement
that “It will be project rather than marketing focused, based on the needs of the various urban areas. This
is in contrast to providing marketing of the County as an attractive business location, which is the typical
focus of an economic development position.” He has a problem that everyone is afraid of the words
“economic development person” as someone on County staff. He thinks Albemarle has an image problem
regarding all the things it is trying to accomplish with this position. He hears continuously from the business
community that Albemarle is not business-friendly. If the words “economic development” are not included
in this position description that will translate to some people that it is only another urban planner.
Mr. Rooker read the words under the first bullet which referred to this position being the primary
contact for new and existing businesses.
Mr. Boyd said the bullet describes an economic planner, why not just call it that?
Mr. Rooker said he is not in favor of calling this an economic development person because the job
is a multi-function job. He is not opposed to that being a part of the duties but he does not see that as being
the primary focus of this person depending on what is going on and where his time may be needed.
Mr. Boyd asked if Mr. Rooker sees this primary function to be in planning. Mr. Rooker responded
that he did.
Mr. Foley said an economic development position is typically about marketing the county as a
whole, so based on what the Board has said previously, that title does not seem appropriate. Planner is
also not appropriate title, because this will go further than just planning. Titles used in other places have
August 4, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
been: business facilitator, economic vitality coordinator, and commercial development specialist. He did
not come prepared today to give the Board alternative titles to use, but wanted the Board to know that it is
proposed to be called economic development director. Normally, that conotates a much broader
marketing effort with less focus on urban development of small downtown areas.
Mr. Dorrier said he thinks the word “business” should be used instead of “urban”. The word urban
gives it a big city type of connotation where business can be applied to the rural County too.
Ms. Thomas said if anything is to be done about rural development, there would need to be
someone to help the agriculture sector find markets for their goods and help create more farmers’ markets.
If anything is done outside of the Development Areas, it would get into a different set of skills than those
needed by a person who is a development facilitator.
Mr. Foley said the Crozet Master Plan and some of the strategic plans talk about this being a
focused position. Other localities have agriculture development positions. He said that when the Economic
Development Policy is reviewed, some focus on promoting agricultural industries may be a
recommendation. It would broaden the responsibilities of this position if agricultural development was
included.
Ms. Thomas said Mr. Boyd has talked about the feedback he is getting. However, when the
newspaper article appeared saying the County was getting an economic development planner, she heard
from lots of people who are frightened of it. That term suggests to people that Albemarle wants to become
more populous and despite having one of the lowest unemployment rates in the nation, it is trying to “drum
up” more business. The term does not imply that the County is developing its infrastructure and land
development. Economic development implies a marketing position. Just coming up with a title for the
position may be one of the more creative things the Board does.
Mr. Boyd said he does not think economies stay that way by themselves.
Ms. Thomas said if she lived in Martinsville she would be “shouting from the housetops” that
economic development was needed. In this community what is needed is different than in a community that
has a high unemployment rate and has dying businesses. She said State Farm Insurance just decided to
reinvest in their position in Charlottesville and Albemarle. She thinks that practically speaking for what this
community needs, typical economic development is not the thing that is needed.
Mr. Boyd said he had not heard the three terms mentioned by Mr. Foley earlier. He asked about
the concept of being project-oriented. If this position is going to be project-oriented a lengthy project could
be made of just Crozet.
Mr. Foley said that will come down to the work plan. Staff’s focus will be on the urban areas.
Crozet is at a place now where there needs to be some attention given to it, but there are other places that
also need attention. He said staff has a clear understanding that this is not just about Crozet but about
master planning the urban area.
Mr. Wyant said this position will encompass a lot of things. He thinks the work for this person will
be overwhelming.
Mr. Tucker asked if business developer or facilitator is what the Board wants.
Mr. Dorrier said he thinks business is better than urban. He does not think people think of Crozet
as being urban.
Mr. Bowerman suggested calling the position “business director.”
Ms. Thomas said she would like the word “development” to be in the title. She thinks a business
facilitator suggests the County would take the place of the Small Business Administration or the Economic
Development Partnership. Since it is guided by the Master Plan and the Comprehensive Plan, she thinks it
will be development based.
Mr. Bowerman asked if all the Board members agree that this is something they want to do.
Mr. Boyd said there are some alternative approaches that could potentially help the Board to “wade
into the position” rather than hiring someone when there is some uncertainty as to what the Board is looking
for. There are consultants who work on a retainer with a community to help with business facilitation or
business development. He knows there are people available who could help get the County through the
first six months or so of this initiative.
Mr. Wyant felt that was not a bad idea. However, is there a need for continuity going from a
contracted person to a full-time person? That would be the only drawback, but might be the way to find out
what the Board really wanted this person to do for the County.
Mr. Tucker said he talked to someone at the one locality mentioned to him by Board members, and
what they were looking at was not as focused as what the Board has talked about. They were looking
broader for their community marketing side.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks the quicker the right person is hired the better. There are existing needs
with Crozet being one. Someone is needed to “get up to speed” on what is going on in the County and be
August 4, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
able to deal with it. If someone is going to be hired, he thinks it would be better to hire someone and get
him in there. Whenever someone is hired, his role is shaped over time by the needs of the County.
Mr. Dorrier said there has been a good discussion, and it seems the Board is in favor of hiring
someone.
Mr. Bowerman said the name has been talked about, but what about the other points mentioned in
the executive summary.
Mr. Rooker said it appears that these points cover a broad scope of things, and this person could
be assigned to do different things. He does not have a problem with those points.
Mr. Tucker said he can see this individual needing to go to the private sector. As Mr. Foley said,
this employee will not be focused just on Crozet, but will have to get into the detailed issues in order to
make something happen in the downtown area, and that will take considerable time. The comments about
a facilitator title are good.
Mr. Boyd said he hopes someone who is familiar with the area can be found.
Ms. Thomas said an example of economic activity she became involved in was trying to find an
alternative site for Faulconer Construction. That is sort of thing this person might be involved in. She
suggested that staff come up with six titles, and present them to the Board at another meeting.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. North Pointe/CDA, Update.
Mr. Mark Graham, Director of Community Development, thanked the applicant and his architect,
Mr. Ron Keeney, for their help over the past months. Almost all of outstanding design issues have been
resolved. The applicant resubmitted a plan this past Monday. There are two design issues on which there
is still not agreement. One has to do with the arrangement of the library block which is the core of the
“downtown” area. The other issue has to do with reflecting all of the ARB comments on the layout, with the
exception of the big box limit proposed. Staff proposes to bring that layout to the Board’s meeting in
September and receive comments at that time.
Mr. Graham said the bigger issue to be discussed on September 1 is related to the proposal for a
CDA (community development authority). In the proffers, there are a number of points where staff is stuck.
Staff needs direction from the Board on the CDA and where the Board stands on the use of CDA’s to fund
development infrastructure.
Mr. Dorrier asked the definition of infrastructure. Mr. Graham said that would be the Route 29
improvements, the internal spine streets “North Pointe Boulevard”, “Northwest Passage”, the improvements
to Leake Road which is the connector road to Proffit Road, the Proffit Road improvements, water and sewer
improvements (they are looking to build a pump station for the sewage to serve this development and some
other areas), and stormwater utilities.
Mr. Rooker said as to the issue of the CDA, staff needs to be sure it is separating the proffers from
the CDA that would be for the developer to fund his own infrastructure. The decision on the kind of CDA
the applicant has proposed would not be made at the time the rezoning was decided. If the developer is
making his proffers contingent upon a CDA, he thinks he will have trouble getting approval. He does not
think this Board will approve that kind of CDA at the time of rezoning. He does not know if the Board could
bind itself to make that kind of decision at that time.
Mr. Davis said he does not believe this Board should bind itself to a CDA that is proffered to make
improvements that are critical to the Board making the rezoning. If the improvements being proffered are
contingent upon a CDA, and without those the Board would not approve the rezoning, that is problematic.
The CDA is a separate legislative act of this Board that would have to be made independent of the rezoning
decision. That creates sort of a “chicken and egg - Catch 22” for the developer who wants to make those
improvements an integral part of his development and wants to base the financial decisions on a CDA’s
creation. What has been proposed is a schedule whereby if this Board believes a CDA is an appropriate
vehicle to make this development go forward, the Board would hold a public hearing on the rezoning
decision in October and then allow the bond counsel to develop a CDA proposal that the Board might
consider in December. The rezoning decision would be deferred until the Board could see both proposals
at the same time, and then, perhaps the Board would act on the CDA first and the zoning decision second if
that is the way the Board wants to proceed. A lot of work has to go into making those projects ready for the
Board to vote simultaneously. Mr. Davis said if that is the path this Board wants to take, then that is the
recommendation staff will make in terms of timing of how to make it happen, how to address the
developer’s concerns, how to protect the Board’s interest and how it would be approved. The major
discussion this Board must have, and that is scheduled for September 1, is whether or not this is the type of
development that the Board wants to avail a CDA to support. There is a lot of policy implications to that as
well as practical implications as to how that would work.
Mr. Bowerman said he thinks the model for that is the Hollymead Town Center in terms of what is
required, and then the CDA for both Hollymead and Albemarle Place addressed things that were not
specific to what that development had to do. For those two developments, there were proffers to do the
improvements that are necessary in order for that development to occur.
Mr. Davis said the difficulty over the past several months has been a disagreement between staff
August 4, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
and the developer as to what would be required even without a CDA versus what the developer is offering
with a CDA. That makes the analysis more difficult to clearly define what in addition the developer is
offering without a CDA. There is some disagreement between staff and the developer on where that line is
drawn.
Mr. Rooker said the process Mr. Davis just set out makes sense. Ultimately the developer needs to
understand that if he wants to tie proffers that are requirements for the development to a CDA, then this
whole project rises or falls on whether the County ultimately decides to permit that kind of CDA. Albemarle
Place is interested in such a CDA. The cost of structured parking is more than they originally estimated and
they are looking for ways to try and provide that while at the same time keeping cost in line with original
estimates. If the County is going to allow infrastructure CDA’s, the Board needs to keep in mind that the
North Pointe developer will probably not be the only one who seeks to use that approach.
Mr. Boyd said he thinks the Board might see that issue readdressed by Hollymead Town Center if
the Board opens it up and says it will review different aspects for Albemarle Place. He said Albemarle
County would not be the first people to utilize a CDA in the State. He asked if the CDA is usually approved
at the same time as the rezoning.
Mr. Davis said Albemarle County is unique in how the CDA is envisioned. In all of the other uses of
the CDA, zoning was already in place and the CDA was being used as an economic development lure.
The best example of that is at Short Pump. That zoning was in place and they were competing with
another site. Henrico County basically offered the CDA as a financial incentive so Short Pump could
happen. The zoning decision was not in play when the CDA was being considered. This is what makes it
more difficult here. That is not the way that staff is envisioning a CDA would play into economic
development in Albemarle County. It would instead be viewed as a way to build necessary infrastructure if
used for developments which are consistent with Comprehensive Plan requirements. If a CDA is to be
used, that is the approach staff feels is proper, rather than as an economic development tool.
Mr. Boyd said this has been discussed for a long time. He thinks it is time for the applicant to come
forward and say what he would do with a CDA or without a CDA. The Board could then make some
decisions about things that were not proffered in other locations such as the library site. He thinks the CDA
is a tool for the County, and not for the developers. Maybe it helps both.
Mr. Davis said staff has had that discussion with Mr. Rotgin, and last week he indicated that is what
he would do. He will bring forth a set of proffers and a set of plans that will show the alternatives between
what he is willing to do with a CDA and without a CDA. At the October meeting, the Board may have that
information. He is not sure how helpful that will be with the analysis.
Mr. Wyant said in Crozet, a CDA would be used to do the bridges, the infrastructure, and maybe
the library. He asked if the Board is “opening up a can of worms” with the developers.
Mr. Davis said the Board has had this discussion before. There are two types of CDAs. One is an
assessment CDA which would tax each piece of property to pay for specific projects that would be financed
by bonds. The way those have been done is that the developer basically defines what improvements he will
finance. That will be set at the beginning. Those include typical infrastructure that the developer would
normally pay for out of developer dollars as well as some abutting, offsite improvements. It could include
libraries and fire stations, etc. At this time, the County has not programmed those types of things into a
CDA. The Crozet Library is programmed in the County CIP and is funded in that CIP. It would not be
dependent on a CDA, but the Board could change the CIP and fund it through a CDA if the landowners
came forward with a CDA and listed that as one of the projects they wanted to fund. The impact of that
would be that those landowners who make up the CDA would pay for that. It would come solely from those
landowners. The debt service and principal would be paid from those assessments which are either paid
upfront when the property is closed, or collected over a number of years on a prorated basis of that
assessment. That is part of the equation from a political standpoint that the Board needs to consider.
Mr. Rooker said if the County were looking at just general public improvements, there are service
districts which can be used. The CDA that was embodied into the Hollymead Town Center and Albemarle
Place was simply an incremental tax that was given over and above their set of proffers. What is proposed
by the developer of North Pointe is something which is something new.
Mr. Bowerman said it is almost an unfair advantage because the cost of his development would be
less in terms of the money he had to put up in competition with the others which have already been
approved.
Mr. Rooker said Albemarle Place may come back if the Board approves the CDA for North Pointe
and ask for a CDA for their area. He said this is not an isolated case, there will probably be others.
Mr. Bowerman said parking has always been an issue with Albemarle Place.
Mr. Boyd said the Board should probably establish a policy for CDAs.
Ms. Thomas asked Mr. Graham if the issue concerning affordable housing has been settled. Mr.
Graham said “no.” That is one of the questions about proffers that will come back to the Board. There is a
committee working on an implementation plan for affordable housing. But staff has no true guidance on
what it should ask of a developer.
Mr. Tom Foley said staff wants to have more of this discussion in September after the staff has
presented some analysis. How to use CDAs is a significant policy question. Implementation of the
August 4, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
Neighborhood Model might be proper incentive to use a CDA. To offset stormwater costs or some
expected road costs is a completely different type of analysis. He said Mr. Rotgin can give the Board two
plans, but both would have to be approvalable. There is a whole process of evaluating the plan.
Mr. Dorrier said this meeting is running behind schedule so he thinks remaining comments should
be held until September.
Mr. Ron Keeney said he had one thing to mention. He has been directed by his client to prepare
that second plan without a CDA and they hope to have that in the Board’s hands for the September 1
meeting. They hope to have it in staff’s hands before that time.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. CPA-2004-03, Community Facilities Plan, Work Session.
Mr. Cilimberg said this is part of the whole discussion about how infrastructure is provided in
Albemarle County. He said the Community Facilities Plan was adopted as a component of the
Comprehensive Plan and has not been updated since its original adoption in 1993. This draft of the revised
Plan includes updated sections for Schools, Libraries, Police and Fire/Rescue facilities. Sections of the
Plan related to Solid Waste, Administrative Offices, and Parks and Recreation will be updated once studies
related to each section are completed.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Libraries, Police, and Fire/Rescue sections were unanimously
recommended for approval by the Planning Commission on May 18, 2004, and the Schools section was
unanimously recommended for approval on June 15, 2004. The School Board also reviewed the Schools
section on June 10 and unanimously recommended approval.
Mr. Cilimberg said there are representatives from the facility providers present today to answer
questions. He will focus on a few things which were of interest to the Commission or the providers interests
or reflective of policies the Board has already adopted into the Plan. He said the Commission included two
objectives in the Overall Facilities Objectives section encouraging environmentally responsible design and
construction of public buildings. A new section on the County’s Neighborhood Model and how the model
may relate to facilities planning and development has been added. Changes to police response times have
been reflected (now five minutes or less to all emergency calls in the Development Areas and 10 minutes
or less to the Rural Area. Fire and Rescue response times remain the same, but the measure for achieving
those times changes from achieving “an average response time” to achieving the “desired response time 90
percent of the time.” The Libraries section is reorganized, but there are no major changes to service
standards. The standards are consistent with recent library facility studies in 1999 and 2001, and the
Virginia State Library standards.
Mr. Cilimberg said regarding Schools, the biggest change was in the area of enrollment for middle
schools. The School Board played a part in developing this particular plan section. They recommended
increasing middle school enrollment from 750 to 900 students. Flexibility in how those schools might be
provided has been included. Two different school site sizes are established for elementary schools based
on the amount of fields provided to serve community park/recreation needs. The larger school size
provides the typical level field/recreation space that has traditionally been provided to meet Community
Park standards. The smaller size is based on providing only the field/recreation space needed for
educational purposes.
Mr. Cilimberg said that for all facility sections, the Plan emphasizes pedestrian connections to
adjacent neighborhoods and recommends that necessary sidewalk and bikeway improvements within a
quarter mile radius of a new facility in the Development Areas be programmed for construction. This is not
meant to build new sidewalks since there is already a sidewalk program in the CIP. This would be another
basis on which sidewalks might be included in that program.
Mr. Cilimberg then offered to answer questions. He said the Board will need to set a public hearing
date to take comments on this Community Facilities Plan.
Mr. Dorrier said it appears that all the public bodies approved it unanimously. Mr. Cilimberg said
the School Board and the Planning Commission both recommended approval.
Mr. Dorrier asked for Board comments.
Ms. Thomas said she was impressed by a county in Oregon passing a policy that said whenever
possible they would include affordable housing in with any of their public building projects, and out of that
came a building with a library and affordable housing with rental apartments on the upper floors. She
asked if the Board members and staff think there is enough language in this Plan that talks about meeting
all of the other Comprehensive Plan goals so it is not necessary to restate the same things. If something is
included, she thinks community facilities should be planned for multiple uses when practicable such as
provision of services from several agencies and low-cost housing or furthering the development of a road
network. Those are examples that have recently come up. This is something she thinks illustrates good
planning by a local government to think of any building it builds as having a multitude of uses.
Mr. Cilimberg said from a policy guidance standpoint, it is good to have a list of things that might be
considered with facilities. They would need to be considered on a case-by-case basis. There may be an
opportunity with the new library in Crozet to do that. He suggested that if the Board wants to have that kind
of language, that it be included. It could make reference to opportunities for housing, other multiple uses
and potential even private/partnerships on commercial.
August 4, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
Mr. Wyant said there is already some language in this amendment talking about multiple uses. Mr.
Cilimberg said the language could be expanded from that to identify some of the things the Board members
feel are important.
Mr. Wyant said if business and residential are put together, he thinks it would be referred to as
mixed use. Facilities would have to be built somewhat larger in order to accommodate other activities
there. Mr. Cilimberg said an example of that in the future would be a satellite County office associated with
the library.
Ms. Thomas said in her example given earlier, the housing is privately-funded.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks multi-use, mixed-use and affordable housing should be considered when
building new public facilities so it is at least looked at with that in mind when being designed. Mr. Tucker
said that is what Mr. Cilimberg was saying. He thinks it would be better to include that language as another
objective similar to what the Commission recommended on page 6 with regard to design. Mr. Cilimberg
said staff will draft some language for consideration before the public hearing.
Mr. Rooker asked if the figures on page 11 are the correct figures for the police force. Mr.
Cilimberg said he will have to check those numbers.
Mr. Boyd said he thinks those figures should not be in the plan.
Mr. Rooker said the figures on page 16 for the volunteer fire and rescue staff are not entirely
accurate now. He thinks the figures should be correct at the date of printing. Also on page 17 it says “The
primary goal of the County is to achieve the desired response times and increase the level of service in all
areas of the County.” He thinks the level of service has been defined as being response time. He does not
think that if an area has a three-minute response time that service will be increased in that area. His goal is
for the County to meet the defined goals instead of making a general statement that the level of service will
be increased throughout the County. He thinks a period should be placed after the word “times” because
that is the way level of service is being defined.
Mr. Cilimberg said the sentence would read “The primary objective of the County is to achieve the
desired response times.”
Mr. Rooker said that on page 18, under No. 6, Pedestrian and Bicycle Access, it talks about fire and
rescue stations, and he thinks that wording should be started out by saying “Where appropriate, provide
sidewalks.” He does not think that providing sidewalks with fire stations is necessary. He noticed that the
word “library” is used several times in this paragraph. He thinks this paragraph was probably picked up
from the library section and that word was left in accidentally. In Paragraph 9 on page 19, it says in the
second sentence that the decision of when to build will be based on the number of fire and rescue calls
emanating from the area until such times as the number of calls reach 365 per year; existing stations shall
cover the interim period. That is one call per day. This is saying that when it gets to one call per day, it is
time to start looking for a new facility. Later in that same paragraph, there is a sentence which says “In
addition, a threshold of 1,000 calls per year should be used as a benchmark indicator for capacity in a fire
and rescue station.” He does not understand this language.
Mr. Cilimberg said the intent was to actually plan before getting to that point. He thinks the
providers are better able to tell whether 365 is the right starting point.
Mr. Rooker suggested the language be reworked. He said that on page 22, under Libraries, it
states that the minimum size for a branch library is 4,500, and he thinks it means to say “4,500 square feet
based on state standards”. It continues by saying “Due to construction operation cost efficiencies, generally
libraries will be between 15,000 and 30,000 square feet in size.” He asked if this is making a distinction
between a library and a branch library.
Mr. Cilimberg said the distinction is between the minimum-size based on state standards and what
the County would want to provide. These will be branch libraries.
Mr. Rooker said the language is not consistent; the language needs to be made clearer. If the
intent is to say that generally County facilities are to be between 15,000 and 30,000 square feet for branch
facilities, that language should just be put in parenthesis in that paragraph.
Ms. Thomas said she was interested in the discussion (on that same page) as to how technology
has neither reduced nor enlarged the amount of space necessary. She still hopes technology can be used
to reduce the need for library building space. She wondered if this should say that when technology can be
used to reduce the need for library building space it will be encouraged. She has an idea which she has
shared with the Library Board members without receiving any feedback. At the present time books can be
ordered via computer by using the Library’s card catalog. She thinks that if bookmobiles could deliver
books to country stores it would enhance traffic going to the country store, and make the bookmobile more
efficient since one would not need to meet it at a certain time. The books could be left at the country store
and all of this would have been done by use of technology. She would like to encourage the libraries to use
technology to reduce the need for library building space. Something to this effect might be added to the
section on libraries.
Mr. Rooker said his last item is on page 31, under High School, the third bullet which says “Rates
capacity”, but it does not say whether the capacity is a minimum or a maximum. Is it saying that schools
August 4, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
should not be built for more than 1,500 students?
Ms. Diane Behrens said the capacity for a high school should not exceed 1,500 students.
Mr. Dorrier said there would be no further discussion of this item today. He asked if the Board was
ready for this to be advertised for a public hearing.
Mr. Tucker said if that is the Board’s intent, staff will set a date for the next available hearing date.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. Closed Session: Personnel and Legal Matters.
At 12:05 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Boyd that the Board adjourn into closed session pursuant
to Section 2.2-3711(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (1) to consider appointments to boards,
committees and commissions.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
(Note: Ms. Thomas said she is going to the funeral of Ms. Treva Cromwell at 2:00 p.m., and will
get back to the meeting as soon thereafter as possible.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 13. Certify Closed Session. The Board reconvened into open session at 1:15
p.m.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Boyd that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to the
best of each Board member’s knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open
meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the
closed session were heard, discussed or considered in the closed session.
The motion was seconded by Ms. Thomas. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 14. Appointments.
Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas:
To appoint Mr. John Knapp to the Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee with a term to expire July 8,
2006.
To appoint Ms. Tracey C. Hopper to the Commission on Children and Families with term to expire
June 30, 2007.
To appoint Ms. Kim Walters as the youth representative on the Commission on Children and
Families with a term to expire on June 30, 2005.
To appoint Mr. C. Henry Hinnant, III, to the Workforce Investment Board with a term to expire June
30, 2005.
To appoint Mr. Rod Gentry to the Workforce Investment Board with a term to expire June 30, 2006.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Boyd. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 17. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Wyant asked the purpose of the questionnaire sent out to businesses regarding solid waste.
Mr. Tucker responded that staff is trying to determine from the private sector how much they
recycle, how they dispose of their waste, etc., in order to finalize a solid waste plan for the County. It was
data gathering from the private sector, primarily businesses. He said it is frustrating, but the City went off on
its own and contracted with someone without consulting with the County. If staff had known what the City
was doing some things could have been done more efficiently. This also left the Rivanna Solid Waste
Authority out, and they are the agency charged with responsibility for solid waste management. He said the
University should have been a part of this effort; they are also doing their own thing. Staff will be discussing
August 4, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
all of this with the Board in the near future.
Mr. Wyant said he received a number of inquires about recycling in Crozet this past month.
Mr. Rooker said he has questions about the form that was mailed. In his area, the form was mailed
to individual businesses and none of them have anything to do with solid waste disposal for their office.
They have a building owner who takes care of that. Nobody knew how to respond. He thinks it would be
important to get the form to the people who own the buildings.
Mr. Wyant suggested that when such questionnaires are mailed, the Board members receive a
copy so they can be prepared to answer questions from their constituents.
___________
Mr. Wyant said he thinks that as development occurs in Crozet a recreational facility will be
needed. He has had someone from the private sector who is interested in putting in a recreation facility
similar to ACAC approach him. Mr. Tucker said that person just needs to talk with Zoning staff and find
land that is zoned properly for the use.
_________
Mr. Wyant said he and the Parks and Recreation Department have talked with some people who
would like to donate a possible 600 acres to the County, and the County’s only expense would be to put
gravel on the road. Mr. Davis said staff will discuss this with the Board in closed session next month. Some
paperwork is needed before this is ready for the Board to consider.
__________
Mr. Bowerman said he had a question about the Albemarle County Service Authority’s annual
report. It has a note about Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority expenses. He asked if these are pass-
through expenses for purchase of water and wastewater services. Mr. Tucker the RWSA only has two
customers, Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville.
Mr. Rooker said the report shows that they have $12.0 million per year in revenue. He has been
asking for a long time for some computation of the incremental rate increase per million dollars of
amortized debt. He thinks the Board members ought to be aware that for every one million dollars of
capital improvements recommended as part of this package, it will increase the rate by “X” percent based
on the current rates. He does not know how you could amortize $150.0 million with a gigantic increase in
rates based on a current $12.0 million revenue base.
Mr. Bowerman said the users will pay that debt.
Mr. Davis asked if the ACSA has a reserve that they are planning to use. Mr. Tucker said ACSA
has one; the City does not.
Mr. Rooker said that reserve is not significant compared to these costs.
__________
Mr. Boyd asked when the Board will receive Phase II of the Parks and Recreation facility needs
survey. Mr. Tucker responded that it should be completed next month.
Ms. Thomas said when the Board got the Phase I report it learned that the report had not officially
gone to the Planning Commission. The Commission had evidently seen the report because they had
issues with such things as the dark skies and other programs. She said if there is anyway to avoid a conflict
between Planning and Parks it should be done.
Mr. Tucker said Planning is on the staff committee that reviews this plan with the consultants. He
said staff and the consultants are saying, for example, there is no reason to build 10 more baseball parks if
just one baseball park could be lit. That is when the Commission said the County has a Dark Skies
Ordinance in effect and they are not going to approving lighting fields. The consultants are just showing
options.
Mr. Rooker said the dark skies ordinance only says there must be a certain size of light, not that the
fields cannot be lit. Mr. Tucker said that is where the Commission may be jumping to conclusions.
Mr. Wyant said he has heard that there is only one lighting company that meets the County’s
standards. They do not have any competition, so somebody needs to look at that situation.
Mr. Davis said there were no lights installed at Cove Creek. Western Albemarle High School did a
better job than what St. Anne’s-Belfield did with their baseball field.
Mr. Rooker said those were two different vendors. Both of those met the ordinance. There should
be at least two, if not more, suppliers.
(Note: Ms. Thomas left the meeting at 1:30 p.m.)
Mr. Davis said he thinks that initially there was only one vendor. The St. Anne’s-Belfield site plan
was controversial. There was a lot of opposition to them lighting the field. They found a vendor who was
able to meet the standards the Commission wanted. Since that time, lights have been installed at
August 4, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
Monticello and Western Albemarle. Those installations were less controversial.
__________
Mr. Boyd asked if a joint meeting of the Board and City Council will be scheduled anytime soon. He
thinks there are some issues which need to be discussed.
Mr. Dorrier said he has mentioned it to a couple of Councilors and both are receptive.
Mr. Tucker said a meeting has not been scheduled yet. Mr. Brown and Ms. Hamilton are coming to
the County to meet staff members and department heads. Mr. Rob Schilling did it when he became a
Council member and found it very helpful in understanding the function of each office. If there is to be a
meeting a committee should be appointed to discuss what subjects would be on that agenda.
Mr. Boyd suggested that waste management be one item.
Mr. Dorrier suggested having a discussion of economic development.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks it would helpful to have a presentation of what is going on in the City from
an activities standpoint, and changes they have incorporated into their zoning. He gets some of that
information from the PACC Committee and the MPO, but he thinks it would be helpful to know what is going
on in the City. The Board should probably do the same thing about what is going on in the County. He
thinks one goal of a meeting like this is education so both sides can understand what is happening in the
other community.
Mr. Boyd said communication and education should be another topic. He thinks that if someone
initiated the idea of holding a meeting, a date could be arranged.
Mr. Tucker said it would be easy to do what Mr. Rooker wants having a presentation back and forth.
When the Chamber of Commerce meeting is held (around September 17) the Board will probably hear
some comments about such a meeting.
Mr. Rooker said there was a meeting yesterday having to do with transit. The City is doing a fairly
thorough transit study and hopefully there will be recommendations about what to do in the Main Street
corridor connecting the University to downtown. They have plans for that corridor because they view it as
being significantly underdeveloped at this time. They want to encourage in-fill or mixed-use development.
They also have specific plans for the Preston Avenue corridor. This area will probably grow over the next
forty years by more than 100,000 people just if it grows at the same rate. Where are those people going to
live? Is it more efficient for them to live in the City? It affects transportation corridors and how a lot of things
are perceived.
Mr. Boyd said it would be interesting to have a presentation on each locality’s strategic plan. Things
specific just to the County could be removed, but strategic planning in the area of transportation, water and
waste management, need to be discussed for the regional community.
Mr. Tucker said there needs to be a focused agenda because the two bodies could talk about a lot
of subjects. He will make contact and try to determine a suitable meeting date. In the meantime, Mr.
Rooker and Mr. Dorrier might meet with the Mayor and Vice-Mayor to talk about an agenda.
__________
Mr. Boyd said the Board got an electronic version of the final budget. He asked if the Board will
receive a hard copy of the adopted budget. Mr. Tucker responded that he will see that each Board
member gets a copy.
__________
At the request of Mr. Dorrier, motion was offered by Mr. Rooker, seconded by Mr. Wyant, to adopt
the following resolution recognizing the 24th reunion of the USS Mansfield DD 728. Roll was called, and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Wyant.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the USS Mansfield DD 728 was a destroyer commissioned in the United States Navy in
1944; and
WHEREAS, the USS Mansfield served proudly in combat in World War II, the Korean War and the
Vietnam War; and
WHEREAS, the USS Mansfield was decommissioned in 1974 and sold to Argentina; and
WHEREAS, the United States Navy veterans who served on the USS Mansfield are having their
th
24 reunion from August 9 - 15, 2004, in Charlottesville and Albemarle County, Virginia; and
August 4, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
WHEREAS, the U.S. Navy veterans who served aboard the USS Mansfield defended their country
in peace and in war and are living embodiments of the true meaning of the words “duty, honor and
country”; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County recognizes the courage and
sacrifice of the veterans of the USS Mansfield and welcomes these brave sailors to Charlottesville and
Albemarle County, Virginia, the home of Mr. Thomas Jefferson and the University of Virginia.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Lindsay G. Mr. Dorrier, Jr., Chairman, on behalf of the Albemarle Board
of County Supervisors, do hereby designate the week of August 9 – 15, 2004, as “USS Mansfield
th
Week” in Albemarle County to recognize the 24 Reunion of the USS Mansfield veterans and to honor
the sixty-eight returning sailors who served proudly on the USS Mansfield during the period from 1944
to 1974, including combat in World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War.
FURTHER, those sailors who served on the USS Mansfield who could not attend this 24th Reunion
because of disability or sickness or death, are also honored – they shall never be forgotten.
(Note: The Board recessed at 1:45 p.m. and reconvened at 2:00 p.m.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 15. SP-2004-0013. Old Trail Golf Club Amendment (Signs #36, 40, 44 & 87).
Public hearing on a request to amend SP-2002-16 to remove condition #2 regarding alignment of the road
serving golf course being in conformity w/Crozet Master Plan, once adopted. TM 55, Ps 71, 103F & 105 &
TM 56, P 17B. Znd RA. White Hall Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was published in the Daily Progress
on July 19 and July 26, 2004.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff’s report which is on file in the Clerk’s Office with the permanent
records of the Board of Supervisors. He said the applicant requests an amendment to SP-02-16 to remove
Condition No. 2 which states: “The applicant shall construct a road to serve the golf course, built to public
road standards and running from Route 250 to the property line at the northern edge of Tax Map 56, Parcel
14. The road shall follow an alignment consistent with the Crozet Master Plan once adopted.” Although
the Zoning Administrator, in her review of the pending final site plan for the golf course, found the proposed
road alignment consistent with the master plan, the applicant would like to remove the condition to avoid
future questions of compliance, prior to the adoption of the Crozet Master Plan.
(Note: Mr. Bowerman returned to the meeting at 2:02 p.m.)
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 13, 2004, by a vote of 6:0,
recommended approval of SP-2004-13 subject to 18 conditions, modifying the second condition by deleting
the second sentence in that condition which said the road shall follow an alignment consistent with the
Crozet Master Plan once adopted. The staff had recommended removing the entire condition, but the
Commission felt it was still relevant to have the basic condition requiring the road to be built to public
standards as called for in the condition as originally worded.
Mr. Boyd asked about Condition No. 6 which says the existing house cannot be removed. Mr.
Cilimberg that condition would need to be amended in order to remove the house. That language was part
of the original condition based on the historical significance of the house. That condition is not before the
Board tonight.
Mr. Rooker said the applicant has requested no change in any of the other original conditions. It
would be difficult now to go back and do anything different.
At this time, Mr. Dorrier asked the applicant to speak.
Mr. Gaylon Beights said this house was one of the first ever recorded in the County and is currently
his residence. The condition does not bother him. All he is trying to do is remove the reference to the
Crozet Master Plan because no such plan has been approved. If they were about to open the golf course
and they needed a CO or any other permit, they would not want a roadblock should there not be a master
plan.
Mr. Boyd asked if Mr. Beights was happy with the language. Mr. Beights said “yes.” The road
should be completed within 60 days. It is connected to Old Trail Drive which is about 40 percent built.
Mr. Dorrier asked if there were any further questions for the applicant. There being none, he asked
if there was any one else present who would like to speak concerning this matter. Since there was none,
he closed the public hearing to bring the matter back before the Board for discussion and possible action.
Mr. Wyant moved for approval of SP-2004-13, Old Trail Golf Club Amendment, subject to the
conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission deleting the second sentence of Condition No. 2,
which states, “The road shall follow an alignment consistent with the Crozet Master Plan once adopted.”
The deletion shall be limited to that sentence so that it resolves the issue but still leaves the construction of
the road on this special use permit.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Wyant and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
August 4, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
ABSENT: Ms. Thomas.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1. The facility shall be in general accord with the plan titled “Old Trails Golf Club”, prepared by
Roudabush, Gale & Associates, Inc., dated October 21, 2002, and revised December 16, 2002,
subject to these conditions;
2. The applicant shall construct a road to serve the golf course, built to public road standards and
running from Route 250 to the property line at the northern edge of Tax Map 56, Parcel 14;
3. Private club memberships shall not be required for access to or play on the course;
4. There shall be no outdoor lighting of the course or of the practice area/driving range;
5. No new residential development shall be permitted within the “Limits of Golf Course indicated
on the plan titled “Old Trails Golf Club”, prepared by Roudabush, Gale & Associates, Inc., and
dated October 21, 2002, and revised December 16, 2002;
6. The existing house known as Mountain View shall not be demolished;
7. The club house, restroom building, and maintenance facility shall be located within the
Albemarle County Service Authority jurisdictional area;
8. No portion of any structure, excluding signs, shall be located closer than fifty (50) feet to any
residential or rural district. No parking area or loading space shall be located closer than twenty
(20) feet to any residential or rural district;
9. All landscaping around the clubhouse, restroom building, maintenance facility, parking area
and other facilities shall include only native plants identified in the brochure
“Native Plants for
published by the Virginia
Conservation, Restoration, and Landscaping: Piedmont Plateau,”
Department of Conservation & Recreation;
10. Vegetated areas of the facility outside the tees, greens, fairways, roughs, cart paths, and
access road shall remain in their current states (if wooded) or be revegetated and maintained
in native plant species. These species shall be selected from the brochure
“Native Plants for
and/or
Conservation, Restoration, and Landscaping: Piedmont Plateau” “Native Plants for
published by the
Conservation, Restoration, and Landscaping: Riparian Forest Buffers,”
Virginia Department of Conservation & Recreation. Species identified in the
“Riparian Forest
brochure as being native only to the Coastal Plain region shall not be used.
Buffers”
Management of these areas shall maintain them in native plant species. Non-native plant
species shall be diligently removed from these areas. The applicant shall submit a letter from
the Thomas Jefferson Soil & Water Conservation District stating that these plantings required
have been established to the District’s satisfaction;
11. The applicant, upon the request of the County, shall provide verification to the satisfaction of
the Director of Planning and Community Development that the site is in compliance with the
specifications contained in Conditions 9 and 10 regarding the landscaping plan;
12. Stream buffers in pasture at the date of this approval shall be revegetated in accordance with
the schematic titled , dated
“Minimum Standard for Hole Crossings in Existing Pasture Areas”
January 15, 2003, and prepared by Jerry Kamis. The design of the stream crossing on hole 12
shall be deemed to be in general accord with the plan titled “Old Trails Golf Club”, prepared by
Roudabush, Gale & Associates, Inc., dated October 21, 2002, and revised December 16, 2002,
and shall use a minimal sight line subject to a mitigation plan to be approved by the
Department of Engineering and Public Works;
13. Irrigation water for the golf course shall come only from surface water impounded on existing
ponds on the site;
14. The dams and outlet structures on the two ponds on the site shall be repaired and upgraded to
the satisfaction of the Department of Engineering and Public Works;
15. The course shall secure Department of Engineering and Public Works approval of a natural
resources management plan. This plan shall address wildlife conservation and habitat
enhancement, waste reduction and management (including hazardous material storage and
spill containment), energy efficiency, water conservation (including water-use reporting and
efforts to protect stream flow in Slabtown Branch), water quality management (including runoff
management for the clubhouse area, monitoring, and reporting), and integrated pest
management. The applicant, upon the request of the County, shall provide verification to the
satisfaction of the Director of Engineering and Public Works that the site is in compliance with
the specifications contained in the plan;
16. Grading shall be carried out in general accord with the conceptual grading plan titled
“Preliminary Grading Plan,” prepared by Gene Bates Golf Design, and dated January 9, 2003;
17. Cart-path stream crossings shall be built in general accord with the drawings titled “Wooden
Cartway Crossing Plan” and “Wooden Cartway Crossing Elevation.” (Attachment E from
Executive Summary dated 3-5-03); and
18. Neither the green for Hole 14 nor the tee boxes for Hole 15 shall be located less than twenty-
five (25) feet from the property line.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 16. SP-2004-0014. Gary T. Dalton (Sign #89). Public hearing on a request to
allow Home Occupation Class B for Furniture Making in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.31 of the Zoning Ord which
allows for Home Occupation-Class B. TM 94, P 90, contains 2.1 acs. Znd RA. Loc on Rt 828 (3830
Whitetail Lane), approx .25 mls from intersec of Whitetail Lane & Rt 808 (Running Deer Rd). Scottsville
Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was published in the Daily Progress on July 19 and July 26, 2004.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff’s report which is on file in the Clerk’s Office with the permanent
August 4, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
records of the Board of Supervisors. He said the applicant seeks approval of a special use permit for a
Home Occupation-Class B to allow for a professional furniture workshop. The furniture business would be
operated in an existing workshop building which is detached from the applicant’s residence. With approval
of this special use permit, the applicant proposes to construct a 320 square foot addition onto that building
for the business. A waiver of Section 5.2.2.1(a) was requested to allow an expansion of this size and the
waiver was granted by the Commission. The applicant would have no employees and has indicated that his
general hours of operation would be during daylight hours, Monday through Friday, with limited Saturday
hours. There would be no customer visits to the shop and no business signs are proposed. The applicant
would only produce custom-made commissions and there would be no mass production of furniture. Given
the scale of the business, there would not be substantial storage of materials.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff found no issues with the request. No additional traffic will be generated
other than normal residential traffic. Staff recommended approval with conditions which were modified by
the Planning Commission to increase the area to be used in the shop to 800 square feet. The Commission,
at its meeting on July 13, 2004, by a vote of 6:0, recommended approval subject to four conditions.
Mr. Dorrier asked the applicant to speak.
Mr. Gary Dalton stated that he has been building furniture for a number of years and hopes to do
so for profit. This will be a one man shop. It is not high production furniture. It is made only one piece at a
time.
Mr. Dorrier opened the public hearing. With no one from the public rising to speak, the public
hearing was closed and the matter placed back before the Board for discussion and action.
Mr. Rooker moved for approval of SP-2004-14, Gary T. Dalton, subject to the four conditions
recommended by the Planning Commission that included a modification to Condition No. 3 to increase the
square footage to 800 square feet.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Wyant. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Wyant and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Ms. Thomas.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1. The number of vehicle trips per week associated with this home occupation shall not exceed
ten (10);
2. The use shall be conducted in general accord with the concept plan identified as Attachment B
in the staff report;
3. The total square footage of the shop building, including the study, shall not exceed eight
hundred (800) square feet in size; and
4. No business sign shall be permitted.
(Note: At 2:19 p.m., the Board recessed and reconvened in Room 235 at 2:30 p.m. for the next
agenda item.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 18. Subdivision Text Amendments: Work Session.
(Note: The executive summary is set out below for purposes of clarity.)
“The Board, at its meeting on May 5, 2004, directed staff to invite representatives of interested
organizations to join them in a series of facilitated work sessions to discuss the four outstanding
issues regarding recommended changes to the Subdivision Ordinance. The outstanding issues
relate to inter-parcel access, private streets, overlot grading and urban street improvements (curb,
gutter, sidewalks and planting strips). On June 2, the Board held a work session on interconnected
streets. On July 7, the Board covered changes regarding private streets and overlot grading. The
remaining issue for the Board’s review relates to urban street improvements.
“Urban street improvements proposed under this amendment can be divided into three parts: an
urban street section versus a rural street (curb and gutter versus ditch); sidewalks constructed as
part of the street; and, tree planting areas provided as part of the street. All of these improvements
were recognized by staff, DISC, and DISC II as part of the Neighborhood Model that is not required
under the current Subdivision Ordinance. Staff has tried to propose language that is consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan and as proposed in the Neighborhood Model Implementation Plan. The
following provides a short analysis that considers the issues regarding each, including fiscal
impacts and housing affordability.
“Urban street section: The existing ordinance allows the County to require ‘adequate drainage
control’ for public streets or private roads, but does not require curb and gutter, even where VDOT
indicates it is needed. The proposed ordinance would use the urban section street as the standard
for the Development Area but would allow waivers. Administrative waivers are included in the
amendment for the following circumstances: (i) when the average lot frontage along the street is
greater than 150 feet, provided it is not part of a street that has curb and gutter or is planned to
August 4, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
have curb and gutter; and, (ii) where the street is one part of an existing rural standard road and the
agent has determined it is unlikely the road will have curb and gutter within 20 years of the
determination. Urban street sections can be waived in other situations by the Planning
Commission.
“Under both the current and proposed VDOT Subdivision Street Regulations, the use of curb and
gutter is a decision reserved for the local government. Currently, even where both County and
VDOT staff believe a rural section will create future problems neither staff nor VDOT has the
authority to require an urban section street. With the current emphasis on better utilization of the
Development Areas, smaller lots and significantly higher demand for on-street parking are
anticipated. With a rural section street, it is illegal to park with wheels on the pavement, which
means the vehicles would park on the shoulders and sides of the road causing accelerated
deterioration of the street section and excessive erosion. This, in turn, would create demand for
expensive maintenance and reconstruction as well as impact streams. There are cost implications
with initial construction with regard to affordable housing and County fiscal impact.
“An urban section street is significantly more expensive to build than a rural section street if
considered from the perspective of costs per linear foot of street. This additional cost is usually
reduced on a per lot basis by having fewer feet of street frontage for the smaller urban lot than for
the larger rural lot. The urban versus rural street section ‘trade-off’ is between higher initial costs
incurred during construction of the urban lot, which are ultimately reflected in the sales price of the
house, versus higher maintenance expenses and/or reduced property values associated with
decaying infrastructure for the small lot with a rural section. In looking at other urbanizing counties
in Virginia, staff found that most of them recognized there is a balance point where the urban street
section becomes more effective than the rural section street. For most, this balance point
appeared to be when the average lot has something less than 150 feet of street frontage or the
average lot size is something less than 15,000 square feet.
“In examining the requirements of other localities, it is staff’s opinion that the residential density
anticipated throughout the Development Areas would meet most localities’ criteria for requiring an
urban street section. Thus, staff believes setting an urban section street as the standard in the
Development Areas and allowing special circumstances to be managed by waivers would provide
the best balance.
“Sidewalks: The existing ordinance allows the County to require sidewalks and pedestrian
walkways on one or both sides of the street in residential subdivisions of more than two dwellings
per acre and ‘commercial and industrial developments wherever determined by the agent or
commission to be reasonably necessary to protect the public health, safety or general welfare’.
The proposed ordinance requires sidewalks on both sides of the street in the Development Areas,
but allows for waivers. Administrative waivers may be granted if (i) the street is serving three or
fewer dwellings; or (ii) the street is an existing street and no sidewalk exists or is planned on the
abutting property. Sidewalks can be waived in other situations by the Planning Commission.
“Unlike other elements of the Neighborhood Model, it appears difficult to consider sidewalks on a
project by project basis in the Development Areas. A sidewalk network only works where it is
continuous and avoids the need for pedestrians to walk in the street. Gaps in the sidewalk network
would likely create demand for future capital improvements funded by the County. The County
currently has CIP funding for construction of sidewalks to address existing demand and it is
anticipated that demand will increase as the Development Areas build out. The County’s CIP
sidewalk projects have shown that it is significantly more costly to construct sidewalks after a street
is completed versus constructing the sidewalks as part of the street construction. Beyond the
additional contractor mobilization, constructing the sidewalk after street development often requires
expensive changes to the drainage, lot grading and street section. There is no question that
constructing the sidewalk as part of the subdivision increases the cost of housing, but the cost to
taxpayers to build the sidewalk after the fact would be much higher.
“If costs are considered a serious obstacle, an alternative would be to reduce the amount of
sidewalk below what is currently described in the proposed ordinance. For example, sidewalks
could be required on both sides of the street when connecting to adjoining properties, but only one
side of the street for cul-de-sacs and internal loop streets of a certain length. When the
requirements of Virginia urbanizing localities were examined, staff found a broad range of
requirements with regard to sidewalks. For the density proposed in the Development Areas, it is
staff’s opinion that most urbanizing localities would require a minimum of a sidewalk on one side of
most streets and on both sides of the street when it serves as an arterial for traffic. It appears that
few, if any, of these urbanizing localities are placing the same emphasis on pedestrian orientation
as Albemarle County does. The issue becomes what is truly needed for the sidewalk network to
support the type of development proposed in this county. The recommendation brought forward
from the Planning Commission would start from the position that sidewalks on both sides of the
streets are needed but allow for waivers for circumstances where it appears that the sidewalk
would provide little value.
“Finally, beyond the initial cost of the sidewalk, there are long-term maintenance costs that should
be considered. VDOT will maintain sidewalks in the public right-of-way, but the level of service may
not meet the County’s expectations. For example, VDOT does not control weeds, repair cracks or
bulges, and will not clear snow or debris from sidewalks. Additionally, sidewalks along private
streets would be privately-maintained, but staff recognizes there could be circumstances where the
County would be asked to assume maintenance responsibility for the street and sidewalk. The
August 4, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
County will need to consider sidewalk levels of service above and beyond what will be provided by
VDOT as part of urbanization costs.
“Street Trees: There is currently no provision in the Subdivision Ordinance for a planting strip for
street trees and the Zoning Ordinance only allows street trees outside of the street right-of-way.
The proposed ordinance requires planting strips for street trees on both sides of the street to be
within the right-of-way for subdivisions in the Development Areas, but allows for waivers. This
requirement may be waived by the Agent for streets with three or fewer lots and in other
circumstances by the Planning Commission.
“This requirement provides for a planting strip between the curb and sidewalks, but does not
actually require trees or other vegetation to be planted in this area. The primary issues are
additional right-of-way and maintenance of vegetation. Beyond the value of this planting strip for
vegetation, the space also provides important safety separation between vehicles and pedestrians
on sidewalks, further accommodating the pedestrian orientation with development. Under
proposed VDOT regulations, a minimum of a six-foot planting strip between back of curb and
sidewalk would be required for street trees. Under the same VDOT regulations, a minimum of
three feet would be required between the back of curb and sidewalk where no street trees are
anticipated. Thus, the requirement for planting strips to accommodate street trees would require
an additional three feet of right-of-way on each side of the street, which increases the street right-
of-way width by six feet. That extra right-of-way is a cost offset by allowing reduced lot sizes and
setbacks under the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment currently under development.
“Staff has worked with VDOT to develop a set of street standards that allow the pavement width to
be kept to a minimum, which also reduces the extra right-of-way required. Between the reduced
setbacks and reduced pavement widths, staff believes the right-of-way costs have been mitigated.
Even before the planting strip and street trees are allowed in the right-of-way, staff is seeing
development recognize the value of placing trees along the edge of the street right-of-way and
doing it voluntarily. Thus, the planting strip creates the opportunity already desired. Even if street
trees are not immediately placed in the planting strip, staff still believes it is important to maintain
this opportunity for the future. If this space is not created with the subdivision, it will be practically
impossible to acquire the additional right-of-way and move sidewalks at a later time. Between
buried utilities, reduced setbacks for houses, and the costs of that land, there simply will not be the
opportunity to add the planting strip at a future date.
“Finally, maintenance of street trees is recognized as a complex issue. VDOT will not maintain
street trees in the public right-of-way and would provide only minimal maintenance of the planting
strip. It is anticipated that VDOT would want a master agreement between VDOT and the County
before allowing street trees in the right-of-way. This is similar to what was done when VDOT would
not accept maintenance responsibility for sidewalks in the past. The County would then require an
agreement between the property owner and the County so that the property owner or homeowners’
association would be responsible for maintenance of those trees. Maintenance would include
removal of branches to allow the sidewalk and street to remain unobstructed, plus removal of
leaves and fallen branches. Longer term, it is possible this could become a maintenance issue for
the County if property owners did not adequately maintain the trees and planting strip and asked
the County to assume this responsibility. Similar to the sidewalk maintenance issue described
above, this will be an urbanization issue that will need to be addressed.”
Mr. Mark Graham, Director of Community Development, made a PowerPointe presentation
concerning the Subdivision Text amendments. He showed some examples of existing developments and
how the proposed amendments would affect development in the future. Some of the issues included
drainage problems on streets, illegal parking on rural sections of road creating the need for repairs, eroded
ditches, erosion problems, curb and gutter and sidewalks. He offered to answer questions.
Mr. Dorrier asked the first speaker to come forward.
Mr. Don Franco said he was present on behalf of Blue Ridge Homebuilders’ Association to present
a case study of development options under the proposed Neighborhood Model regulations dated July 21,
2004. The study was not intended to say the Neighborhood Model is not doable. They are not saying it is
too expensive, but are just identifying impacts, and putting numbers on them. They need some
confirmation that these are not unintended impacts. All the slides he will present are plans of things they
would consider building. He pointed out that they chose Timberwood Subdivision for this study (copy of
slides on file in the Clerk’s Office). He made the presentation using PowerPointe slides. (Note: Ms.
Thomas returned to the meeting at 2:32 p.m.) There followed a lengthy discussion by the Board members
mostly to do with the pricing of housing.
Mr. Franco said the BRHA is not saying the Neighborhood Model is bad, but are questioning the
higher density. They wonder if attached housing can effectively compete with the rural area, and the
outlying county product. They are not saying the Neighborhood Model is too expensive, but are asking if the
additional costs are warranted. They question affordable housing. Raw land is now selling for $35,000+
per unit. There are a lot of issues which need to be looked at, and they think the County’s ordinances in
total need to be looked at. They encourage other groups to do similar studies.
Mr. Franco said if there is an example of a community anywhere which everyone likes, they
encourage someone to go and get the plans for that community, then apply Albemarle County ordinances
to that plan to see what the impediments would be to implementing that plan. That is how to judge what
should go forward instead of moving toward requiring things where the impacts are not known.
August 4, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
Mr. Boyd said he appreciates this report from the BRHA. He thinks it actually shows that if the
County works with the whole community, what everybody wants can be accomplished.
Mr. Dorrier then invited comments from other groups.
Mr. Tom Loach said he was present to represent the Crozet Community Association. The
association discussed the subject of curb and gutter and sidewalks at its recent meeting. A proposal was
made and passed by an overwhelming majority of the residents to state that any new development in
Crozet would have curb, gutter and sidewalks. To them, this is a non-negotiable issue. They have fought
long and hard to make that progressive step from Highlands with nothing, to Western Ridge with asphalt, to
Gray Rock with sidewalks, and now to the new developments which all have curb, gutter and sidewalks. To
those in Crozet this is a matter of quality. They see that the inclusion of curb, gutter and sidewalks
improves the quality of the whole neighborhood. That, in turn, improves the resale value of the homes.
Mr. Loach said he thought DISC was begun in order to improve the quality of the neighborhoods in
Albemarle County and that one way to do that was to use the form which was developed under the
Neighborhood Model. He is concerned when the development community talks about affordable homes
when there were only five or so affordable homes built last year. He hopes the Board will make a firm
statement that the free market exists in the growth area; it is important that homeowners receive the
greatest price when their home is sold; and, neighborhoods do not need sidewalks because it increases the
cost of the home and decreases affordability. Those in the growth areas have been paying more for their
homes because they have been subsidizing developers of land use in the growth areas (through the Land
Use Tax; North Pointe being a perfect example).
Mr. Loach said he thinks the master plan is the expectation. He cannot see talking about the
pedestrian-friendly neighborhood and not require sidewalks. Also, with the recent introduction of the West
Nile Virus in this community there is a public health concern in Crozet, and curb and gutter and sidewalks
make for a more efficient removal of standing water. He said it is clear that the issue of affordability and
affordable are two different issues. Affordable is housing which the whole community has to wrestle with
and how to provide it. The DISC Model already allows for different housing types and range of prices. He
said to them this is a matter of quality in the neighborhood. If and when the master plan goes to the next
neighborhood, he thinks they will want the same things they see in the Neighborhood Model; that is, curb,
gutters and sidewalks. He hopes that when dealing with affordability, it is maintained that this is a free
market society and the DISC Model was put into place to make better neighborhoods and not to set up a
separate category of neighborhoods based on affordability.
Mr. Boyd said Mr. Loach made the comment that dollars in Crozet are going to support North
Pointe, and he does not get the connection. Mr. Loach said the County will not collect $9.0 million this year
because of the Land Use Tax, so it is subsidizing the landowner of North Pointe in the Land Use tax that he
is not paying. Even though he is a developer he gets a tax benefit because the land is in land use. Then it
costs the taxpayers another $1.0 million in tax revenues just to support that program.
Mr. Boyd asked if Mr. Loach feels the County is supplementing rural areas all over the County
through the land use tax. Mr. Loach said the problem is that the County’s data does not show that, but
shows that within the last couple of years there have been over 3,000 plots of land exercised for
development in the rural area. If the ACE Program were compared against the Land Use Program, there
would be something to compare. ACE takes the land off of the market permanently.
Mr. Boyd said Mr. Loach is talking about reduced tax dollars for agricultural areas. Mr. Loach said
he is talking about not reducing, but putting it in a subsidy or an investment.
Mr. Rooker said regarding Land Use, there is a rollback provision of five years, so if someone buys
land and develops it within five years, that money is captured. Mr. Loach said that 95 percent of that land
has been in Land Use since the 1970s, so for a great part they are “on the dole.”
Mr. Rooker said they did not develop for 30 years.
Mr. Boyd said it has been open space for all of that time.
Mr. Rooker said not to develop for 30 years and maintain it in an agriculture/conservation use has
been a value to the County.
Mr. Jeff Werner, representing the Piedmont Environmental Council, said the PEC supports the
recommended ordinance related to sidewalks, curb and gutter, and street trees. The proposed regulations
are consistent with the adopted policies and recommendations of the Neighborhood Model. The PEC
urges the County to pay particular attention to this regulation in its relationship to the whole development
area and not as a site-by-site issue. For in-fill development the new must integrate with the existing and
also new development on green field sites must anticipate and facilitate integration with later adjacent
development. The Neighborhood Model is about weaving together the fabric of the entire development
area and not about individual streets and cul-de-sacs. PEC also urges the County to pay particular
attention to the procedures allowing waivers for these provisions. If these amenities are the objective, then
the County must “stay the course.” PEC is concerned that should waivers become too simple or too
commonplace, this ordinance will suffer the same fate as the Steep Slopes regulations which are routinely
waived.
August 4, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 35)
Mr. Werner said he would like to comment on the presentation of the BRHA. There is no doubt that
adding something will cost money. He said that prior to working for PEC he spent 12 years in construction
management. He was an estimator and project manager for all ranges of development. He has reviewed
the analysis that was presented, and he found some errors and has some questions which he will not go
into at this time. His key concern is that coupled with what he is hearing on the DISC Committee and the
community, the conclusion is being drawn to argue against the Neighborhood Model. Any construction
project is a sum of its parts and where there are additional costs associated with street trees and sidewalks
and more roads, there is also added value with these amenities. Additionally, if the cost of home ownership
is to be discussed, all the costs should be discussed and not just the ones which have been selectively
presented by the BRHA.
Mr. Werner said he lives in the City and people marvel that he can afford that, but the fact is that he
only put 3,000 miles on his car last year and that has a lot to do with how he and his wife can afford their
mortgage. In addition, where the development community argues the cost of a street tree is a threat to
affordable housing, he has not heard anyone discuss the public cost for extending public infrastructure and
public services. He said all argued about the proposed Western bypass which will not solve traffic
congestion. Conservative estimates for all the necessary improvements within the Route 29 North growth
area add up to almost $500.0 million.
Mr. Werner said it has been said that building further away from the city is the way to get affordable
housing. He said there is a cost associated with this creep into the countryside and there is a domestic cost
to a family’s budget related to commuting. VDOT has said that for the foreseeable future there is little if any
funding for any new projects. A new panacea appears to be the Community Development Authority
everyone is talking about and it is really just an increase in local taxing authority to fund improvements for
which VDOT cannot allocate money. He has not heard anyone say how the public will painlessly contribute
to the funding of hundreds of millions of dollars of road improvements. If a street tree is a budget buster,
how do $100.0 million development projects not impact the cost of development in housing?
Mr. Werner said that a month ago this Board discussed issues related to lot grading and saw
examples related to poor stormwater management. In response to recommended changes, it was said that
the market would not accept additional costs associated with solving the problem. This would impact
housing affordability. One can conclude from the Homebuilders’ study and the statements made in the
DISC II Committee and elsewhere that the Model will affect housing affordability and may not be supported
by the market. An inference was also made that the requirements of the Model including higher density
would make housing unaffordable. Coupled with an ongoing call for growth area expansion, he concludes
that affordable housing is only possible with low-density development, no sidewalks and no trees and no
onerous provisions for stormwater management, and, if the County would only dispose of the
Neighborhood Model and expand the growth areas, affordable housing would no longer be an issue.
Mr. Werner said the Daily Progress has reported on the housing boom in the City. It notes that The
Kessler Group has submitted a proposal for development in Johnson Village, exactly the type of project that
is said to be too costly in the County. The proposal includes City-mandated sidewalk and street trees. In
the proposal it states “The applicant is seeking a PUD amendment to zoning in order to better respond to
the varied existing uses adjoining the infill site and to create a variety of quality housing choices for a wider
range of incomes in the city.” He learned that range is much higher than he had envisioned. Ryan Homes
will be building out that site so now that Northern Virginia builders are in this area it will be interesting to hear
their opinions about these costs.
Mr. Werner displayed a scenario of development on 15 acres in the City. He said if the
Neighborhood Model is so cost prohibitive, how is it that when it is applied in the City, it can be marketed as
providing market choices for a wider range of incomes. If the Neighborhood Model is so unmarketable,
how is it that Burnet Commons in the City sold its 36 housing lots before the houses were finished? He said
the Timberwood analysis allows a critical look at the problem. Timberwood is part of Forest Lakes North
which according to the GIS covers about 388 acres with 737 house lots, and 142 acres in open space. He
is surprised that there is a $35,000 line item in Timberwood for a tot lot with 142 acres of open space all
around it. In any event, this development has a density of about 1.9 units per acre, so no wonder the
County is running out of land in the growth area. This land was planned for three to six dwelling units per
acre and he does not know why the County allowed development at such a low scale.
Mr. Werner said the growth area is not built out. He said the City has a population of 45,000 people
in an area of 7,000 acres, or six persons per acre. He said the County’s growth area covers 23,000 acres
and has a population of about 45,000 people, a density of approximately two persons per acre. How could
the growth area possibly be full or built out? Finally, he questions why the BRHA analysis includes only
costs to portray them as owners without ever revealing how they actually affect the bottom line. He has no
problem with a builder or a business person making a profit, but when the business community turns
around and points the finger at the County and the Neighborhood Model and the advocates for smarter
growth as the reason for causing housing to be unaffordable, he thinks it is only fair to ask the developers to
put all the numbers on the table.
Mr. Werner said he fully agrees with one issue. If the County wants the Neighborhood Model, then
the County must find a way to green light development that is consistent with the Neighborhood Model. As
a builder, he can say that the most agonizing thing other than bid day is going to a municipality and trying to
get a permit. He thinks someway must be found to streamline the process. He thinks the development
community has some legitimate gripes about how that process is being handled. He thinks it is time to stop
using affordable housing as a red herring on the issue. That is a societal issue which can be solved.
Mr. Steve Runkle, Chairman of the DISC II Committee, said it strongly supports requiring urban
August 4, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 36)
improvements such as curb, gutter, sidewalks and street trees in the development areas. They had a
lengthy discussion of waivers and agreed that they may be appropriate, but did not know how they would be
provided. The Committee would like to work on clarifying those circumstances. DISC II would like to have
more time to discuss the issue and will not make any additional recommendations until that issue is solved.
Mr. Rooker asked how much time that would take. Mr. Runkle said they should be finished by the
end of August. Note: Mr. Foley arrived at 3:15 p.m.)
Mr. Rooker said Mr. Franco mentioned things like ordinance changes to permit private alleys. He
asked if there are other things which need to be done in the ordinances.
Mr. Runkle said this is the first time he has seen this presentation. He said that as a developer he
has no problem with the Neighborhood Model. But, they think there could be unintended consequences. It
has nothing to do with what the development looks like, but what could happen to the marketplace if certain
things are done in the development areas causing people to move elsewhere. They think what is being
required is worth talking about. The DISC Committee has been talking about drainage; they talked about
the principles being independent and yet they do not operate independently. When the developer does
something relative to represent the goals of the Neighborhood Model relative to one principle, it may have
adverse impacts relative to another principle. Some mechanism is needed which would help everybody
understand the implications of the Subdivision Ordinance changes proposed. He said one big issue has to
do with road requirements. He thinks there are a lot of design concepts which are consistent with the
Neighborhood Model, but at this time it is questionable whether they can be implemented, particularly with
the proposed changes.
Mr. Boyd said that in Mr. Franco’s presentation, it appeared to him that Alternative D met the
Neighborhood Model principles with sidewalks, streetscapes, and all of the other things being requested. It
would only need some adjustments in areas that are not currently being defined as anti-DISC models. He
is having trouble with the previous presentation that this is an attempt to go away from the Neighborhood
Model. It appeared to him that it was a way to keep down costs and stay within the Neighborhood Model.
He asked if he misunderstood Option D.
Mr. Runkle said it has been said that when infrastructure is increased, it can be picked up in density
so the per unit cost goes down. The only way that happens is to change the unit mix. He might be able to
pick up density slightly and deliver a single-family product, but the only way to appreciably change the
density is to change the product mix. He has to have a higher percentage of non-detached, and more
attached product in that mix. Laying on top of that some of the requirements suggested, i.e. 20 percent
amenity or open space, that slants that mix further toward the attached product to get the equivalent or
greater densities. It constantly forces him to look at a decrease in the percentage of detached products.
For years the County has been running at about 65 percent detached. He said the development
community is saying it can build a given project with a product mix that is different from the market as a
whole, and it might potentially be successful, but is the Neighborhood Model going to change the product
mix for the wider community, or is the segment of the community that is looking for the detached product
going to find it somewhere else. He said there are costs associated with that, but the market does not
seem to recognize those costs. That is the concern that he has. He hopes that if the urban structure is
provided with those kinds of amenities, more people might live in a more clustered product.
Mr. Rooker said that seems to be the case. In the City there are a number of areas that include
attached products and they seem to be successful.
Mr. Runkle said as Albemarle becomes bigger and more congested, that will be true.
Mr. Rooker said that is true in every market. He remembers that before Northern Virginia was
developed out, there was about an acre for every unit. That was back no further than the 1980s. Then they
were building mansions on a tenth of an acre and people still bought them. As Albemarle becomes urban,
if people want to live in this area, they will have to accept that they are living in closer quarters.
Mr. Runkle said it impacts affordability because all of that stuff makes a given product type more
expensive.
Ms. Thomas said she has been impressed that people are willing to pay more for the same type of
house just to live in a certain school district. She said people are making decisions based on a lot of
factors. The County’s reputation for an outstanding school system does a lot for attracting businesses and
residences here. Although stormwater is not something most people are aware of, when it goes wrong they
are aware of it and will tell others to avoid that particular neighborhood. People also make decisions based
on commute time. Also people pay more for houses where there are street trees.
Mr. Runkle said he would not disagree with anything Ms. Thomas said. His concern as a developer
is transitioning from the current system to the one that is necessary to do what is wanted in the future. He
has to deal with several different agencies about the location of easements, etc. As long as the developers
are able to execute it reasonably, he agrees with the Board. So far it has been very difficult to execute and
he thinks there is a way to go before it is anywhere close to being easy.
Mr. Neil Williamson was present to speak for the Free Enterprise Forum. He provided the Board
with information about when these amendments were first brought forward and their questions regarding
August 4, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 37)
the legality of mandating street trees, sidewalks, etc. The County Attorney has said those requirements are
within the bounds of Virginia law so he will keep his comments to the question of waivers. One thing the
free market does is to embrace options. The Free Enterprise Forum is concerned that if a strict, impossible
waiver process is put forth, options are restricted. They ask that DISC II be allowed to do its work, and that
it come forward with a plan that does not restrict those options. There are situations in the County where
sidewalk on one side of the street makes more sense than on both sides of the street. There are situations
where street trees may hinder certain things and may not be approvable. The goal is one thing, but making
it something that does not preclude options would help the ordinance move forward. He thanked the BRHA
for putting together the presentation made earlier in this meeting.
Mr. Dorrier asked if Mr. Williamson was in favor of guidelines rather than mandates. Mr.
Williamson said that is true in almost every case.
Mr. Dorrier asked that Mr. Graham summarize.
Mr. Graham asked if there are any changes the Board would like staff to consider other than what
is to go back to DISC II for further study.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks the Board needs to go forward with changes to the ordinance. He would
like to give the DISC Committee until the end of the month to bring back additional recommendations. He
said ordinance changes are necessary in order to implement the Comprehensive Plan. If there is going to
be increased density in the development area, amenities must be provided to create more livable
communities. He does not suggest taking anything out of the ordinance, but suggests looking at situations
where waivers might be appropriate. Also, he suggested looking at models in other locations. He said the
process for developers who propose a plan that meets the guidelines set up by the County needs to be
speeded up.
Mr. Wyant said he thinks the process needs to be speeded up. He said it is nice to have street
trees, etc., but they can cause flooding when they shed their leaves. The type of trees required in the
planting strip is a critical element, otherwise there will be maintenance problems in the future that will be
costly. Also, location of the street trees has to be considered; where utilities are placed cannot be in conflict
with planning. He is hearing comments about allowing flexibility in how these requirements are applied.
Mr. Boyd said he would like to have ordinance changes which allow builders flexibility to find
different concepts that can meet the Neighborhood Model ninety percent of the time. It should be easier for
them to get things approved and through the process. He is totally opposed to any control over the profit
margins of the people that are in any business that is market driven.
Mr. Bowerman asked where Mr. Boyd came up with that idea.
Mr. Boyd said the PEC commented about looking at the total bottom line costs of the developers; it
was sort of subtlety implied that the County needs to look at how much profit margin is in these
developments because that is what is really driving us away from affordable housing. Maybe he read Mr.
Werner’s comments wrong, but that is what he heard.
Mr. Dorrier said the goal is to go from one or two houses per acre to four to six houses an acre in a
development, but in order to get there, it will have to work with developers giving them some latitude to
develop plans that provide for more density, yet also give the County what it wants in the ways of curbs and
gutters, trees, sidewalks. He thinks that instead of mandates there could be guidelines or incentives to
encourage the kind of development seen in Alternatives C and D (see copy of slide presentation on file).
Perhaps the DISC II Committee will be able to help the Board move in that direction.
Ms. Lee Catlin said she would summarize the comments made today. First, continue to go forward
with the changes as they are explained in the ordinance, but that the DISC Committee have additional time
to work through the waiver process and have that come back to the Board to look at specific situations
where waivers might be appropriate. She asked if that was correct.
Mr. Rooker agreed, but added that if there are other ordinance areas that need to be changed in
order to accommodate flexible design, they should also be provided.
Ms. Catlin stated whether it is part of the ordinance or not, the Board wants attention paid to
speeding up or streamlining the process for development that is in compliance with ordinances.
Mr. Boyd said flexibility in the ordinance would be his preference rather than waiver processes.
Mr. Davis said the challenge for staff in the waiver process is that the Subdivision Ordinance and
the Zoning Ordinance are ministerial ordinances. Those ordinances are supposed to set out what must be
done in order to get something approved. In order to have a waiver, there must be objective standards for
whoever grants it, whether that is the Planning Commission or the staff, so they can evaluate the situation
and objectively grant a waiver without exercising an undue amount of discretion. That is very difficult to do
in a Subdivision Ordinance without having specific criteria.
Mr. Rooker said the Board is hoping DISC II will bring back some areas of potential waivers with
criteria that might be workable.
Ms. Elaine Echols, Planner, said the Board began this process by discussing interconnections,
August 4, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 38)
private streets and overlot grading. Today it has talked about curb and gutter. The Board has already
asked DISC II to work on regulations concerning overlot grading. She asked if the Board wants the
Committee to also work through the suggestions made on interconnections and private streets.
Mr. Rooker stated that he thought they should do it all because the Board is looking toward
adopting this ordinance all at one time.
Mr. Tucker asked Mr. Runkle and Ms. Echols about a timetable for DISC II.
Mr. Runkle said addressing when a street is enough of a street for something to front on it may be
beyond the ability of DISC to do. He thinks they can deal with everything else.
Mr. Rooker asked if roads could be addressed by Engineering Department staff.
Mr. Runkle said DISC II could provide some guidance.
Mr. Graham said staff will work with DISC II to come up with something. Staff will bring that to the
Board for further consideration.
Ms. Echols said if the Board’s question is about time, they probably could get through the waivers
on the curb and gutter, sidewalk and street trees this month, but it would take them another month to get
language back for the Board to review. She said during the month of September they would work toward
bringing this back to the Board in October.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 19. Adjourn.
At 3:40 p.m., with no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by the
Board of County
Supervisors
Date: 08/03/2005
Initials: DBM